Taboo

Often at the heart of conflict between the Ugly American or Rebel vs. the Conformist or Chameleon is the taboo.  Simply put, a taboo is a social prohibition on a specific behavior.  Any type of behavior can be considered taboo to a segment or group.  In this blog, one early example I used was anthropophagy, since it is one of the most universal of taboos (even though it is not entirely universal, as we've discovered).

Halakha, or Jewish law, is one system with a complex structure of taboos and rich set of ethics.  It is a good example to use, because it was the origin of modern Western law (for better or worse), even though it has gone through millennia of changes and several large cultural shifts.  Among other things, one important aspect is the "self-correcting" mechanism that allows laws to be interpreted not according to the literal word, but through modern interpretations ("consult your local rabbi" being the universal answer).  This has allowed for symptoms such as the Parable of the Roast to get "filtered out" as time marches forward.  Unfortunately, the legacy of the original legal code (in this case, the Ten Commandments--which ten were those anyway?  there weren't originally ten) is broad, intolerant of other religions, simplistic, and probably a bit too mass marketed to be of any real use to us today as a legal or moral framework.  There is an old joke--and I probably shouldn't tell it for risk of sounding anti-Semitic--that if you start out with ten Jews on a desert island, you end up with eleven synagogues (because nobody goes to that one).  The challenge facing modern day Jews is no different than of any other generation: having intelligent, thoughtful rabbis who are aware of modern attitudes and can make all the difficult decisions based on a wealth of information.  With the internet as a tool, this may not be implausible, but human infallibility is a very difficult problem to overcome.

As time marches on, our taboos shift.  As in my previous post, my hope is that taboos serve a utilitarian purpose rather than a more arbitrary one that labels a specific segment of the population as "unmutual."  True democracy results in a tyranny of the majority, and it is easy to see why: taboos can be little more than fads.

I've mentioned two specific examples of taboos that I have promised to address: homosexuality, which is a sexual taboo, and abortion, which is a medical taboo.  Both of these are complex topics.

I am going to point out one logical fallacy that is frequently applied to both taboos: the slippery slope argument.  It is logically invalid to point out one taboo as some kind of gateway towards other taboos.  A change in the acceptance of one taboo does not in any way lead to the acceptance of others (more often than not, the acceptance of one taboo actually creates a backlash against other taboos).  How one feels about homosexuality, for instance, is rather different from that of bestiality.  How one feels about abortion is very different from how one feels about capital punishment.  Acceptance of one taboo over another does not make one a hypocrite, it only makes one human.

Before I continue, I want to construct a framework in which to talk about the ethics of taboos.  Here are a few questions to ask when judging a taboo:

• Is there any physical harm or risk to a human being in this behavior?
• Is any human being denied a choice or voice in this behavior?
• Is there any permanent damage to the environment resulting from this behavior?
• Is there any non-utilitarian cost or inefficiency resulting from this behavior?
• What are the long-term consequences of this behavior?
• What are the facts about this behavior?

These are questions that are invalid (or at least incomplete) when judging a taboo:

• What does tradition, family, religion, or leadership say about this behavior?
• What does the majority say about this behavior?
• Is accepting this behavior a "gateway" to other taboos?
• Will I gain more money, support, or power if I have a particular opinion of this behavior?
• Will a behavior result in any immaterial, not measurable, spiritual cost or benefit (e.g., roasting for all eternity in Hell)?

In the United States, appeals to divinity are not admissible in a court of law (ethics is by, for, and about human beings--not deities, prophets, or saviors).  Any appeal to tradition is an ethical deadlock: a refusal to accept anything outside of a particular interpretation of the past (and a parable of the roast).

I am sure there are other questions to put on either list, which I hope generates a discussion.  I am going to proceed, without further ado, into the topics themselves.