Dying Well

[Belacqua]

I'd like to suggest that we need to be careful about using the words dogma and norms interchangeably, which is something you are doing in your most recent post. Dogmas are things asserted to be unarguably true regardless of time and place. Norms are much less formal and almost always change with the passage of time. I believe it is reasonable to suggest that dogmas can shape norms, but the two are certainly not the same. 

Yes, that's fair. 

Dogma is something asserted as unquestionable. Norms may follow on from that. 

With that said, I fully agree with you that observing cultural/societal norms can go a very long way in making life a bit more comfortable and in increasing the odds of making a person successful. I don't believe, however, that ignoring such norms ultimately interferes with a society's ability to flourish. In some cases, those who trample norms underfoot may actually move things along for the betterment of all. 

True. Norms evolve, and there are iconoclasts or trend-setters who can change things -- sometimes for the better. 

I wonder, though, if the same isn't true of dogma. If we assume (as card-carrying atheists) that dogma isn't really handed down from on high, then it too can change as societies change. I'm reading a good history of Islam now, and the author goes into detail about how the basic tenets that Muhammed laid down get applied very differently as they spread into different territories. Differing interpretations appear and, while all claim to be following what Muhammed intended, they end up being almost like different religions. Nobody says, "OK, I'm going to change the dogma now," but it gets changed anyway. 

Regarding your commentary on dogma, it seems to me that you are conflating two ideas: (1) living however you want as long as you don't hurt anybody and (2) placing your own personal happiness first. The first suggests that one of the conditions for living well is the avoidance of causing harm to others. The second lacks any such condition. The two, therefore, are not interchangeable. 

Earlier on this thread, Mr. Fake averred: "Living well means living as you want and not as others order you to live." He didn't include the caveat. Later he was more careful, and I do think that the "as long as..." portion is the normal way to say it. 

Whether we can call this firm belief dogma or not I'm not sure. It does seem to be the golden rule of our time. 

So it looks as though "living as you want" is the basis, and then we acknowledge that at least one limit is placed on that -- don't hurt others. Are there other limits? This seems less sure. Is obvious self-harm frowned upon? 

Recently there was a person from England posting here whose ideas were somewhat out of step with the mainstream. For example, he thought that if you enjoy cigarettes you should go ahead and smoke them. For this, he was scolded, and the bad effects of smoking were reiterated in about the same language I heard from my elementary school teachers. So while smoking may not be illegal, it seems to fall somewhat outside of accepted norms. Perhaps a gray area in the dogma -- do what you want as long as you don't hurt others but if you make certain choices I'll call you stupid. 

The same person told us that he feels romantic attachment to inanimate objects, and this was roundly mocked. It, too, fell outside of what is considered respectable practice. Anyway, he was sufficiently scolded and mocked that he left the forum. He was not welcome in this society. 

I'll say two things in closing. First, for some people (many of whom are likely part of this online community), a dogma, religious or otherwise, is garbage at best and dangerous at worst, if it is not a verifiable, accurate statement about the world in which we live. The seeming usefulness of dogma is irrelevant. It is veracity that we want.

Here aren't we up against the old ought/is distinction? 

If dogma is mostly about how one should live, to what extent is it ever verifiable? 

We can all probably agree that it's desirable to have a long healthy life, but in what way is the veracity of such a thing's goodness verifiable? 

Anyway, I appreciate your well-considered replies. I can see you've thought about these things carefully.