The previous post on acceptability talked about some reasons why things become unacceptable over time and raised a point regarding the width of the “boundary of acceptability”. In this follow up I want to discuss a bit more the grey areas surrounding acceptability – from a number of viewpoints including cultural and personal.
It is clear, to me, that it isn’t a sensible thing to shut out the “unacceptable” completely – the context may well render something “unacceptable but necessary”. Equally – there are some things which – whilst being completely “acceptable” – I could not bring myself to do.
Certainly, different cultures define different boundaries – although – once again I stress that the boundary is often not a thin line – but rather a large open space with degrees of acceptability. I guess the sort of philosophical question which would address this sort of thing is the likes of “Is murder ever justified?” – but that would take too long to cover all the angles!! There are, however, many instances where groups of people take opposite views on the acceptability of particular actions.
My aim in this post, however, is simpler – to examine (briefly) some of the ways in which my own ‘sensitivities’ have changed.
I mentioned “murder” – that is one of a number of things that I could have used as an example of something that we each will tend to put in a box which says “bad things”!! However, even the fact that it is in that box does not cause it to be – in itself – a subject that is deemed wholly unacceptable by our minds (In as much as we KNOW that it happens and that “accept” it as part of life). Many people readily ‘devour’ books and films and TV series where murder is the central part of the storyline. If it were wholly unacceptable then surely we would do everything we could to avoid it.
Rather, it is something which “happens” and that we would rather “didn’t happen” – a reality of life – something that we ‘disapprove’ of – but in some ways – something that doesn’t affect us. Some would say that we are de-sensitised owing to the fact that this is “commonplace” in what we read in newspapers and books; in what we watch on TV; in what we see online.
To a sense that is true – according to wikipedia there are around 470000 murders worldwide each year – that is close to one murder every minute. That is a horrifically high number. Yet – more than twice that many people die as a result of road traffic accidents each year. Does that make the car industry worse than murderers? I suggest not – but going purely on “the numbers” that is indeed the conclusion that could be reached.
And yet – when a murder is reported in the news the response is usually best described as muted – it is something that is clearly bad – there is some sort of sympathy for the victims relatives – but it is not something that really gets to you. There are exceptions – when the context is such that there are other related and perhaps more shocking circumstances – the murder of a child, for instance.
I am sure that the reaction is VERY different when this is something of which you have some personal experience. How much worse it is when the “something bad” actually happens to someone we know. The level of anguish that we feel is proportionate to how well we know the victim. This suggests that our ‘triggers’ are based more on the “who” than the “what”.
What is interesting (to me) is how that then changes our perception of similar things happening to people we do not know. Instead of a certain level of indifference our empathy kicks in and we really do feel the pain so much more. The knowledge that the same thing has previously happened to someone close to us causes a complete stranger to have a really deep emotional effect.
So far I have been talking about, I guess, pretty extreme events. Most of the changes in my sensitivities will have come about by much less traumatic situations. In my case, one thing that contributed is the fact that I have physically moved from one cultural setting to a different one. Perhaps geographically that move was not very far – however, the inbuilt values and prejudices are quite different. This has meant that some of the things that were real “boundaries” for me as I was growing up have ceased to be relevant. It has meant that some of the ‘common’ behaviours of my youth would now be considered at best weird!!
The reverse is – of course – also true – some of the attitudes and behaviours that I was brought up with were turned on their head – partly through the geographical upheaval – but perhaps more extensively simply through the passage of time and – dare I say it – an overdone application of political correctness.
However, there are also things that have become highlighted in my mind simply because of the effect I described above – i.e. something has come closer to home – and this isn’t just along that line of acceptability. It can also be “bad things” that happen to people – particular illnesses, both physical and mental; divorce and separations; unemployment; violence and injury. There are, undoubtedly, stories that I read in the newspaper or online that would once have swept over my head that now definitely hit home.
This extends to storylines in books, tv programmes and films – you cannot help but project sometimes on to the circumstances in “real life” that you are aware of. This can make things uncomfortable to watch or read – but, of course, it also can increase understanding of the effect of such things. I certainly have had the experience where as a plot unfolded on a tv show I questioned whether I really wanted to face the “impact” of a particular storyline on my feelings.
This sort of raises the question of whether the world really is a more “evil” place than it used to be – or whether, through time, we become better at recognising the evil – or – perhaps – better at realising the real effect of that evil. The effect of changes in what is “acceptable” have been widely publicised by high profile stories concerning public figures. Many of the events in question happened many years ago – perhaps at a time when – if not exactly acceptable – the behaviour was more commonplace. The fact that “everyone’s doing it” does not, of course, excuse anything – however it provides a rationale for those who are lacking the necessary moral fibre to resist.
I have to say that I am very aware that there are many times when I hear or read a story of some event and I think – should I be more concerned. I recognise that what has happened is a “bad” thing – but I also think “what good is coming of raising this now”! Well it will certainly sell a few newspapers.
Unfortunately, the type of news that really hits the headlines often tends towards the sensational – the shocking – the bizarre – or (and this is one area that I think is ‘dangerous’) the trigger for a crusade. Yes, “crusades” have their place, however starting a crusade on the back of a sensational/shocking/bizarre event can very easily and quickly descend into a witch hunt. It doesn’t matter who gets caught in the net – we are all guilty, at least a little!!
Bottom line is that there are aspects of my own past behaviour that I would not repeat – I am sure I am not alone in that – and equally there are things that I would not have done in the past that now are part of “me”. The reasons for these change are many – and it is – I guess – another way to illustrate my belief that you are the sum of all that has happened to you – all that has “touched” your life. Good AND bad.
It is through those lenses that you will view EVERYTHING – they will colour EVERYTHING – they will feed your biases and prejudices – they will determine where on the scale from “right” to “wrong” you place each happening. They will – naturally – determine what is acceptable and what not – as far as you are concerned.
See also On Morality and If Only for a couple of other takes on a similar subject matter.