Dying Well

[Belacqua]

We live in an extremely liberal time, in which living one's own way is seen as the best thing. People will assert this as if it is dogmatically true.

Hi, Belacqua. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. 

I can't shake the suspicion that, regardless of time or place, living our own way is our only option. The reckless narcissistic hedonist and the devout religious ascetic live substantially different lives outwardly, but each one has inwardly answered the how-shall-I-live question in the same way: I live in the manner that seems best (or in the words you used above, is seen as the best). 

The religious man can (and often will) claim that he lives a life founded upon a set of principles that are objectively and unalterably true, but he has come to that conclusion in an entirely subjective manner: via his own experiences and understanding. This to me seems synonymous with "living one's own way."

My pleasure! You've posed a fascinating question.

It's true that we choose. As the Existentialists teach us, everything we do is something we choose to do, although choosing NOT to do it may have unpleasant results. That is, (for example) you do have the choice of whether or not you follow police commands, though choosing not to might well get you shot. "Do this or die" isn't a very nice choice, but it is a choice. 

So let's say that in every time and place, a person has the option to follow his society's main dogma or not. The question in the OP was: will this dogma inhibit a person's ability to live well? 

Now, the dogma may originate in different ways. People may claim that it is revealed from a higher source. Or they may argue that their beliefs are just self-evidently good, even though every set of "how to live" principles has a history, and dissenters, and will probably fade in the future. But the origin or supposed origin of the dogma doesn't determine whether or not this is a good set of principles to live by. Principles which people say come from a god might in fact be good healthy principles. 

I can see two ways in which following the accepted norms of a society would lead to a good life:

1) if the norms in question are actually helpful. That is, if our societal dogma does promote human flourishing. Dante's ethics, for example, argue such radical social rules as: don't eat too much and don't eat too little. Get the money that you need but don't be miserly or wasteful, and don't live your life just for money. Good old fashioned stuff like that. 

People can make bad choices. They can harm themselves or others. If a culture's dogma reduces those things, then it can help us to live well. 

2) The second is more practical and situational: following a culture's norms helps you get ahead in that culture. If you want enough money to be comfortable, and you want to avoid conflict with your neighbors, and you want to get access to the good stuff the city has to offer, you have to play the game -- at least to some extent. If you want to play for the Yankees, you have to wear the uniform. Choosing not to follow the rules is also a choice, but this means you give up things. 

So getting a certain amount of money and social status requires following the dogma, at least to some extent. In our culture, you have to have these things in order to enjoy certain freedoms. We are free to travel, or example, but you need money to do that. If you choose not to play the game and not make money, then you limit your options. 

Now, what of the current dogma, which tells us that the good life is to live however you want as long as you don't hurt anybody. This is our liberal bourgeois culture's golden rule. If the argument is that before gay people couldn't get married and now they can, then sure, it looks like a good rule. But gay marriage isn't the only choice that people make. And a whole society of people who place their own personal happiness first may not end up being the kind of culture which encourages the flourishing of most. 

One example: suppose you really want to spend your time smoking weed and playing video games your whole life, but you accidentally make a child. I think that assuming responsibility for that child, and giving up your personal preferences is a good thing to do. Granted, you have the choice: you can run for it, and if you get far enough away the courts can't even force child support payments. But I question whether the avoidance of such duty would really be a good life. So there are cases where duty, responsibility to others, making the payments that the court orders, doing what your society expects of you rather than what you'd like to do, make a good life. 

Other people may be making the argument that dogma always and only prevents us from doing what would actually make us most satisfied in life. I am skeptical that this is the case. There may be social norms in place for good reasons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Jamie Boy]

So let's say that in every time and place, a person has the option to follow his society's main dogma or not. The question in the OP was: will this dogma inhibit a person's ability to live well? 

Now, the dogma may originate in different ways. People may claim that it is revealed from a higher source. Or they may argue that their beliefs are just self-evidently good, even though every set of "how to live" principles has a history, and dissenters, and will probably fade in the future. But the origin or supposed origin of the dogma doesn't determine whether or not this is a good set of principles to live by. Principles which people say come from a god might in fact be good healthy principles. 

I can see two ways in which following the accepted norms of a society would lead to a good life:

1) if the norms in question are actually helpful. That is, if our societal dogma does promote human flourishing. 

2) The second is more practical and situational: following a culture's norms helps you get ahead in that culture. 

Now, what of the current dogma, which tells us that the good life is to live however you want as long as you don't hurt anybody. This is our liberal bourgeois culture's golden rule... And a whole society of people who place their own personal happiness first may not end up being the kind of culture which encourages the flourishing of most. 

Other people may be making the argument that dogma always and only prevents us from doing what would actually make us most satisfied in life. I am skeptical that this is the case. There may be social norms in place for good reasons.

Hi, 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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

[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.

[Mister Agenda]

Humbert Humbert was free to live as he wanted, and not as others thought he should live, for a few years anyway.

I don't think very many people would say that he lived a good life.

I think very many people would say he is fictional.
Unsurprisingly, this obvious observation was ninja'd, oops.

[Prycejosh1987]

Death is the absence of life and life is the absence of death.