Bad for Society

Premise

Some people may remark from time to time that “things aren’t what they used to be”, often in relation to “then” versus “now” regarding a particular topic or set of issues. More children being born out of wedlock, escalating gun violence, and a departure from mainstream religion (predominantly organized Christian faiths), are often seen as the “canary in the coalmine” for bad times around the corner.

Over the last 1-100 years, topics have (or still are) in dispute as “bad for American society”, like married women in the workplace, working on Sundays, interracial marriage, liquor, violence on television, social assistance, abortion, same-sex relationships, profanity, non-majority religious beliefs gaining in popularity, “forbidden” books, faith-based initiatives, Facebook, socialism, online dating, capitalism, Marxism, flappers, the right to vote (for women), access to credit in one’s own name (for married women), women who cover/uncover their heads for religious reasons, pornography, the stay-at-home-dad, and eggs (cholesterol). Some topics are perennial favorites (like gun ownership), and others are largely ignored most of the time, only to flare up for a few weeks on television, like the claims that vaccination puts children at risk for diseases and disorders (like autism).

At one time, chocolate Labrador puppies were killed because breeders believed they were protecting the breed. A majority of Americans would probably object to this practice being carried out today, thanks to increased awareness by organizations like the ASPCA. My bias in favor of animal protections aside, it must be acknowledged that there was a time not so long ago when certain practices we consider inhumane today in animal stewardship were standard operating procedures.

When asked why these topics are such a bad thing, a variety of answers can be counted on to pepper the air. In the case of violent television programming, the claim that “it isn’t appropriate for children” will more than likely be made. “Children” are a part of society, but not every part. The same could be made for a standup comedian using profane language in a club. This bad behavior might be objected to on religious grounds, regardless of the comedian’s own religious beliefs: he/she may be an atheist, after all.

In 1968, 17 percent of White respondents to a Gallup poll approved of Black-White marriages. Today that number is 84 percent. While an egalitarian might argue that’s an improvement of 67 percent, the same commenter might also wonder, “what’s with the other 16 percent?” For this minority group of 16 percent, interracial marriage might even be that “crucial point when everything started to go horribly, horribly wrong”.

Backstory

The expression “bad for society” is a broad term that doesn’t bog itself down with facts or parameters. Liquor was deemed to be bad for society by organizations like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union because its position is that it encourages laziness, unemployment, crime, and causes health problems.

After campaigning for several years, opponents of alcohol succeeded in banning the substance with the Volstead Act, claiming that it would help restore society to a simpler, healthier time. Opponents of Prohibition claim that it helped create organized crime in America. For me, personally, learning that Prohibition may have given birth to NASCAR is truly the greatest crime of the 1920s.

Speaking to something being “good” or “bad” for society by the orator/author (particularly in mass media) he/she assumes the moral authority to make such a judgment. Sometimes the orator/author is advancing a cause in this declaration that it is “bad for society”, or has a personal dislike for it.

In the Broadway stage musical, The Music Man, the main character is a con artist operating under the nom de guerre “Professor Harold Hill” who has come to town to interest the parents and their children in joining a boy’s band. When interest proves to be too thin to his liking, the would-be professor seeks an issue of controversy, seizing upon a new pool table in a local tavern. Striking up the townspeople (in a style that only musical theatre can) Hill galvanizes them against the pool table as the living embodiment of sin that would ruin their otherwise noble sons. They are united in a cause that they perceive to be bad for their society. As a result, Hill is free to advance his cause, which is selling band equipment to the townspeople with the intention of skipping town at the end of the scam.  

Why the Topic Interests Me

While basic mores are largely unchanged from one culture to the next (with a few notable exceptions, usually stemming from the high context/low context culture clash) this is where many commonalities end. Indeed, even within a singular culture (like America’s) there are many different, conflicting available courses of action regarding the same topic. For some issues, the choice is a binary one: “yes” or “no”. For instance, “should the death penalty be legal?” is a binary choice.

Often, our binary moral choices are the most polarizing ones. Political constructions like Parties (“Democrat” and “Republican”) thrive on this binary construction. Sometimes, however, issues have “shades of gray” to them, either on their own, or within the context of a binary subject. For instance, alcohol consumption (for those that don’t rule it out completely) may have differing levels of acceptance. “One drink at a party” or “I never drink beer—only wine or a mixed drink, and then only when I’m not driving”. This would be a different shade of gray compared to, having 2-3 beers/glasses of sherry/port several evenings a week. In contrast, neither of these meets the clinical definition for binge drinking.

A too frequent side effect of excess alcohol consumption is driving while impaired (and the subsequent DUI/DWI charges). The penalty for a DUI/DWI changes by state, however, both in terms of classification (misdemeanor versus felony) as well as the individual punishments for either classification (jail time versus probation, losing one’s license versus having one’s driving privileges suspended, etc.). These are shades of gray in a legal application regarding the same moral issue, which is that drunk driving is dangerous or “bad” for other members of society, as well as the drunk driver himself/herself.

In addition to the legal and academic aspects of why certain topics are “bad for society” I’m also interested in the socio-moral context. Women wearing pants (for instance) was once widely regarded as sinful or inappropriate across much of America. Today, the topic is largely a non-issue, except for certain groups like the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints.

Intoxication and women wearing pants can both be traced back to the Torah portion of the bible that is used in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In fact, on the issue of drinking/drinking in moderation, the bible speaks out against this issue a whopping 75 times. In contrast, the bible talks about the poor 64 times. A literalist interpretation might then suggest that the issues of alcoholism and temperance are of greater importance than the care of and solidarity for the poor.

Taking another step back, we might also conclude that religion itself is a manufacturing center for where many of our societal constructs come from for determining what is “good” and “bad” for society. However, religion itself has also been cast as being bad for society from many corners, including sometimes being at odds with the law depending on the country. Christian Scientists are sometimes at odds with state and local vaccination ordinances for what their religion teaches to be “bad for society”.      

    

My Position

“Society” is a pretty big chunk of people. By 2013, America was home to more 315 million citizens, 11.2 million illegal aliens/non-authorized immigrants, 12.6 million Green Card holders, and 336,000 Visa holders. Within each group are different sub-segments of society, and sometimes these groups overlap: I used to work a gentleman from Finland that is here in the United States on a Green Card, for instance.

What people mean when they say, “that’s bad for society” is “I don’t agree with that particular topic”. This is known as “error-related brain activity” or “self-centric” behavior. In effect, what is occurring is that our own perception of “right” and “wrong” has been projected as behavior we feel other people should adopt. Many of us do this by following one of these 15 ethical traps.

What Should Be Done in the Future

When dealing with complex issues, I’m in favor of turning to the advice of people much smarter than I am. In this case, Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, architect of the Louisiana Land Purchase, enemy of big banks, and violator of his bonds of marital fidelity. After all, a god-like man can inspire, but a man with god-like failings will lead—because his flaws (whether or not accepted) make him relatable.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Jefferson was a stalwart believer in the power of democracy through his philosophy of Jeffersonian Republicanism (quite different than the GOP of today), and this was reflected in what Alexis de Tocqueville would later come to call the, “tyranny of the majority” in his magnum opus, Democracy in America. Jefferson understood that smaller groups had existed, did exist and (probably would) exist, and that it was necessary to preserve their basic liberties. Despite expounding upon calls for equality as the secretary that wrote the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson nevertheless neglected to free his slaves, both in life and after his death. However, Jefferson did understand that it was necessary to create an environment that respected these separate (and possibly disparate) groups.

Like many Americans today, Jefferson also possessed a “live and let live attitude, as shown in this statement:

“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

I like to believe that if Jefferson had been born in 1973 (versus 1743) he would have been of the modern mindset that “mankind” can be updated with “humankind”, making no distinction (except as a case of biological function and designation) between a man and a woman.

In this second statement, he is urging that we as Americans deny ourselves the often-frequent right to self-direction, with the exception that we cannot deprive another of liberty, freedom, or independence without appropriate cause.

Later in life, Jefferson would go on to write that,

“Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”

I think peace and friendship are good guiding principles (at the very least) in helping to protect ourselves from that which is truly harmful, which include actions that have no benefit, either to the person committing them, nor to the society around them. It is also important to prioritize conflicting opinions. If “person a” believes all alcohol consumption (or women wearing pants, or two women getting married, or people owning guns) is bad, but “group 1” can do any of these things without causing physical or financial harm to that person (or group of people) it is not bad for society. Indeed, what “person a” is advocating for would actually hard a segment of the community, and that truly would be “bad for society”.

Open Questions

• Are there any topics (legal or illegal) that you feel are “bad for society” but still frequently engaged in? 
• What would you say are some topics labeled, “bad for society” that you think are okay to engage in? Are there any conditions under which one of these topics could become acceptable if it were changed?
• How do you feel about binary topics, where there is only one “correct” answer in a “yes” or “no” kind of equation?
• If you can, name a time when you saw something that was “bad for society” done that positively benefited one or more person(s).
• Upon what criteria should we as people—and as a society—determine what is bad for society? What authentication/verification measures (if any) should be used to ensure we don’t make a mistake? 
• How do you personally determine what is “bad” or “good” for society?
• Are there some activities that are “bad for society” that you think should be “okay for society” that you yourself would still not personally engage in?