From "What You Can't Say", by Paul Graham:
Moral fashions don't seem to be created the way ordinary fashions are. Ordinary fashions seem to arise by accident when everyone imitates the whim of some influential person. The fashion for broad-toed shoes in late fifteenth century Europe began because Charles VIII of France had six toes on one foot. The fashion for the name Gary began when the actor Frank Cooper adopted the name of a tough mill town in Indiana. Moral fashions more often seem to be created deliberately. When there's something we can't say, it's often because some group doesn't want us to.
The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't. In fact, Copernicus was a canon of a cathedral, and dedicated his book to the pope. But by Galileo's time the church was in the throes of the Counter-Reformation and was much more worried about unorthodox ideas.
To launch a taboo, a group has to be poised halfway between weakness and power. A confident group doesn't need taboos to protect it. It's not considered improper to make disparaging remarks about Americans, or the English. And yet a group has to be powerful enough to enforce a taboo. Coprophiles, as of this writing, don't seem to be numerous or energetic enough to have had their interests promoted to a lifestyle.
I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side only barely has the upper hand. That's where you'll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them.
(no subject)
It really didn't take any great insight to write this. Becomes immediately obvious when one takes the trouble to examine the development of any two different societies.
a need for the obvious?
Most people say "Senator xyz voted this way on a single vote, so that must be the way he feels." They do not look for a deeper reason for that vote.
(no subject)
Besides, it's obvious to you. But perhaps not to, say, a 16-year old finally starting to read something other than teen magazines. It might seem unimportant to be a revelation, but then many personal revelations are very limited in scope afterwards, in context.
(no subject)
An interesting remark, given that it seems to no longer be true. It *is* now "improper" to make disparaging remarks about Americans (even if they use the word "unpatriotic" instead). That may just support the point, though -- America is less confident now than it's been in a generation (apparently a deliberate shift encouraged by the government)...
(no subject)
(no subject)