OK then...Why is American "democratic" human rights/individualism opposed to restricted behavior, when it is everywhere?

Fishing example: I use to love to bass fish in 2 local farm ponds. the DOC had fishing laws...size..time...and many others. I abided by those rules ( mostly ), and then one day I went to fish and there were thousands of dead fish floating/dead. A University hog farm, using dangerous chemicals leaked into the pond. Where did they get the money and the right to have this happen...industry! Industry buying up wildness to clear cut the trees? How are those laws granted?
 
Think about Kohlberg's theory of moral development. He suggests we develop as moral individuals where we grow from pure self interest to principled altruism. To allow total freedom for someone in a stage characterised entirely by self interest is to grant licence to that individual. That is why limitations to freedom are legislated.

For the person who acts not just in his own interests, but also in the interests of others, such legislation is mostly redundant. That person feels free and is free. The totally self interested person is the one who complains the most about being restricted. The altruistic person tends to defend the freedom and rights of other people who are oppressed and whose rights are being trampled on.

For those who have never heard of Kohlberg, this is a summary of his work

Kohlberg's theory proposes that there are three levels of moral development, with each level split into two stages. Kohlberg suggested that people move through these stages in a fixed order, and that moral understanding is linked to cognitive development. The three levels of moral reasoning include preconventional, conventional, and postconventional.

Level 1 - Preconventional morality​

Preconventional morality is the first stage of moral development, and lasts until approximately age 9. At the preconventional level children don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Level 2 - Conventional morality
Conventional morality is the second stage of moral development, and is characterized by an acceptance of social rules concerning right and wrong. At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs. A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships as well as social order is seen as desirable and must, therefore, influence our view of what is right and wrong.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.
Click to expand...

Level 3 - Postconventional morality
Postconventional morality is the third stage of moral development, and is characterized by an individuals’ understanding of universal ethical principles. These are abstract and ill-defined, but might include: the preservation of life at all costs, and the importance of human dignity.

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Paco Dennis said:
Fishing example: I use to love to bass fish in 2 local farm ponds. the DOC had fishing laws...size..time...and many others. I abided by those rules ( mostly ), and then one day I went to fish and there were thousands of dead fish floating/dead. A University hog farm, using dangerous chemicals leaked into the pond. Where did they get the money and the right to have this happen...industry! Industry buying up wildness to clear cut the trees? How are those laws granted?
Click to expand...
Well, why hadn’t you gotten involved BEFORE this happen?
 
Paco Dennis said:
We basically agree that any dictatorship/fascist rule is a no no. But, are we aware that we live in a country that has loads of restrictions. It starts with our parents. Some things bad, some things good. Then school. Be there on time, no talking, #2 pencil, no pulling pig tails, straight in line.... Then high school and college...when do the least amount of "follow the man". :) Then marriage/career where we often fall into a rut because of what we will not allow to happen ( we restrict ourselves based on the authoritarian rules of the game? Do we really have freedom?
Click to expand...
I don't think we all agree that a dictatorship is a no no. Yesterday was the anniversary of the insurrection where the losers of the election were trying to overturn the election and appoint a dictator.

Only one political party supports the investigation into that action or is trying to prevent something like that from ever happening again.

The other party is working to allow a coup to succeed and to put a dictator in place. The majority of voters for that party don't accept the results of our last election, even though all challenges have failed. There is no real evidence of voter fraud, but they still won't accept that their candidate lost. What they want is minority rule.
 
Last edited:
Paco Dennis said:
We basically agree that any dictatorship/fascist rule is a no no. But, are we aware that we live in a country that has loads of restrictions. It starts with our parents. Some things bad, some things good. Then school. Be there on time, no talking, #2 pencil, no pulling pig tails, straight in line.... Then high school and college...when do the least amount of "follow the man". :) Then marriage/career where we often fall into a rut because of what we will not allow to happen ( we restrict ourselves based on the authoritarian rules of the game? Do we really have freedom?
Click to expand...
All that is called "Social Structure", if a person wants complete freedom they have to disengage from society and become a hermit.
 
Pepper said:
We're not born into a blank slate. We're born into an already existing world with rules & customs. In that sense, we're not 'free.'
Click to expand...
Oh, we're free in that we always have choices about how we behave we just have to accept/understand that there are consequences to breaking rules whether parental, cultural, institutional or governmental.

The wise person weighs enduring the conequences against the potential 'good' one might gain for themselves or others by breaking rules.
 
feywon said:
Oh, we're free in that we always have choices about how we behave we just have to accept/understand that there are consequences to breaking rules whether parental, cultural, institutional or governmental.

The wise person weighs enduring the conequences against the potential 'good' one might gain for themselves or others by breaking rules.
Click to expand...
That doesn't apply to babies & young children. By the time we are aware we have choices we've already been saturated.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I hope this does not degenerate into right and wrong stuff. Just raise awareness that we live with and agree on many restrictions for the good of society, most of the time. Where do we draw the line? This has to do with how we survive. It is mental health related. :)
Click to expand...
You are right, citizens follow many rules every day. Why? Probably because we don't want to get into car accidents, don't want to get arrested, want to keep our freedom, need to maintain a job.

Where can a line be drawn. I'm not 100% sure but perhaps when your "rights" supersede someone else's? Not sure. Example: One of the most evil people I have ever encountered in the workplace happens to be gay. I'm not the only one who says he uses that to get by with his behavior. That said a gay woman did get fired from my work place a couple of years ago, so it's not like it's 100% protection.
 
Pepper said:
That doesn't apply to babies & young children. By the time we are aware we have choices we've already been saturated.
Click to expand...
Depends on the parents during early years, and the individual.
Whatever 'saturation', conditioning, brainwashing takes place certainly it is not with the identical goals in mind nor is it 100% effective.

I think most people who follow most of the societal restrictions (traffic laws, don't steal, don't damage the property of others) do so because they make sense, they don't want to deal with the consequences and/or they realize it is beneficial to a healthy functioning society. But millions of people every day violate traffic rules, have no concept of common courtesy or civility, and no regard for the 'rights' of others.

They are often the ones who complain loudest about their own rights, forgetting that all rights carry responsibilities as well and the first of them is to promote/grant/ensure the same the rights for others as you demand for yourself.
 
Last edited:
I really do appreciate the thoughtful response to a pretty lame OP, and my explanations. It was an experiment that wasn't very well thought out. I would give my question a D, and your all responses an A+! Hey, what can I say...

and-that-was-5a2113.jpg
 
feywon said:
Depends on the parents during early years, and the individual.
Whatever 'saturation', conditioning, brainwashing takes place certainly it is not with the the identical goals in mind nor is it 100% effective.

I think most people who follow most of the societal restrictions (traffic laws, don't steal, don't damage the property of others) do so because they make sense, they don't want to deal with the consequences and/or they realize it is beneficial to a healthy functioning society. But millions of people every day violate traffic rules, have no concept of common courtesy or civility, and no regard for the 'rights' of others.

They are often the ones who complain loudest about their own rights, forgetting that all rights carry responsibilities as well and the first of them is to promote/grant/ensure the same the rights for others as you demand for yourself.
Click to expand...
QFT (y)
 
People who reject all types of coercion are known as anarchists. Anarchy would be a pretty inefficient and chaotic form of society since everyone would just be doing whatever the hell they wanted. There'd be thefts, murders, rapes, pillaging, plundering... And excessive littering!
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I don't think the OP is necessarily political. It encompasses several aspects and Paco didn't lie. But your point should be considered so that it doesn't turn political. There seems to be a thin line that I've noticed here on SF.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I wasn't intending to be the political police tho', I was just dropping a quick reminder, so as folks don't end up in a politcial quagmire that may end in someone being suspended or worse.. which can and does happen
 
hollydolly said:
I agree, but I wasn't intending to be the political police tho', I was just dropping a quick reminder, so as folks don't end up in a politcial quagmire that may end in someone being suspended or worse.. which can and does happen
Click to expand...
Good idea and thank you because it can also result in shutting down more general discussions of human behavior that can be interesting.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top