Some recent board discussions prompted me to do some thinking, which always seems to have a curious result. For those of you bored or uninterested in philosophical discussion, you might want to move on to the next thread, this won't be to your taste. For those that enjoy a little convoluted thinking with your morning cup of coffee, read on.
As always, these are my personal opinions, which doesn't make them right. I certainly don't speak for the entire lifestyle community, just for myself. Those with differing opinions are equally valid, and I'm hopeful that you may share them here.
Rover
Philosophically Speaking......
I've seen some people put forward the premise that "the lifestyle" has a tradition of moral standards. And while that proposition has been unsupported by historical reference that is either an historical recollection of someone that was there and lived our lifestyle's history, or writing that is contemporaneous to that time period, these people find evidence of moral standards that are "common" within certain elements of "the lifestyle" and consider that "proof" of a so called "lifestyle tradition". That premise is, in my opinion, based upon several flawed theories.
The Fallacy of Commonality
The first is that of an innaccurate sampling of a given portion of "the lifestyle" on which to determine what "common" moral standards exist. It's the same principle pollsters use to design accurate polls. If one wishes to accurately reflect the nation's opinion of tax cuts, for example, they would not simply poll 1,000 people attending the Rebublican National Convention. That would reflect an innaccuracy based upon the predisposition of a particular group's opinion of the subject. It would be equally innaccurate to simply poll 1,000 people attending the Democratic National Convention, because their predisposition would fall in the other direction. A correct and accurate poll of 1,000 people takes into account the differing political affiliations people have, along with many other factors including (but not limited to) race, socio-economic status, age, location of residence, etc. In other words, in order to have an accurate picture of the nation's opinion, the composition of the poll respondents must reflect the nation as a whole.
In point of fact, those that would find such "common" moral standards or "lifestyle traditions" within "the lifestyle" haven't done any kind of polling at all, much less an accurate one. Rather than relying upon any statistical data, they view a tiny slice of "the lifestyle" as can be seen in online communities or chatrooms. That in itself presents a significant problem, as (has been claimed by many reliable sources) many of the people composing those communities and chatrooms are not really in "the lifestyle" at all. And as most who are "in the lifestyle" will advise, online doesn't resemble RL very much anyway. Most would observe that, at best, it is an over romanticization of what "the lifestyle" really is in practice.
And that's really what "common" moral standards and "lifestyle traditions" of this sort are. An over romanticized view of "the lifestyle" based upon empirical evidence as supplied by observation of online chatrooms and communities. And as the foundation for identifying "common" moral standards or "lifestyle traditions", this premise is based upon the most faulty and inaccurate logic, information, and respondents.
The Fallacy of Moral Absolutes
The second theory is that of the existence of moral absolutes. The proponents of "lifestyle traditions" involving a moral code reject moral relativism (individually assigned moral codes) in favor of community (or in this case, lifestyle) moral absolutes. That is, what is "wrong" on a moral level for one, is "wrong" on a moral level for all. And on the face of it, that can seem a logical proposition. Until one realizes that in practice, moral absolutes simply don't exist. Even the most basic and common moral absolutes are, in practice, morally relative.
Let's take homicide (the taking of one's life) for example. On the surface, it seems like a moral absolute, that it is ALWAYS wrong to take another's life. Well, what about in self defense? Or in defense of your family's life? What about war? Does anyone seriously think that killing Hitler to avoid the deaths of six million innocents would have been morally objectionable? What about when it's an accident?
We don't have one opinion on homicide. And we don't apply one standard for its punishment either. We view the act (homicide) relative to the specifics of the individuals and circumstances involved, and then we judge (guilty or not) and punish accordingly. We see differences in the act (homicide) when the circumstances (relativism) may justify a conclusion of self defense, loss of mental capacity, age (a minor vs. an adult), intent (murder 1 vs. murder 2), accident (criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter) and on and on. The point is, even for the most basic human right, the right to live, we all accept and endorse moral relativism.
There are no moral absolutes, especially within "the lifestyle". I, for one, would not willingly consent to the imposition of someone else's moral compass upon me. Whether that moral standard is "higher" or "lower" than my own makes no difference. If one of the tenets of "the lifestyle" is that nonconsensual imposition is abuse (using one of the many definitions of abuse that use the absence of consent as a standard), then the imposition of these "moral standards" or "lifestyle traditions" is, per se, abusive. Hence, the mere establishment of universal "moral standards" is an abusive activity.
Moral Relativism & The Lifestyle
I would propose that our lifestyle is practiced with the principle of moral relativism. We endorse each individual's right to pursue and practice the version of "the lifestyle" which makes them happiest and most fulfilled. That is, in and of itself, relativism. Happiness and fulfillment are relative to the individual, not to the "lifestyle community". There is no blueprint for which B/D S/M activities we should enjoy, nor the type of relationship we should enjoy, nor the kind of individual we should enjoy practicing it with. In other words, there are no absolutes.
It would be inconsistent to embrace relativism as a principle of "the lifestyle" while at the same time seeking to impose "moral absolutes" upon it. They mix about as well as oil and water. And the one thing that IS universally accepted within "the lifestyle", is the relativism to make it personal to us as individuals. Well, ok, almost universally accepted. I guess recent posts have destroyed that myth as well, as there are obviously some individuals that still want to impose their absolutes upon the rest of us.
The issue of "moral absolutes" always comes back to who's "moral compass" will become the norm, and the "standard" by which to "judge" the behavior of those in "the lifestyle". Ignoring the fact that vastly different moral standards exist is akin to self imposed ignorance. And if one accepts that they exist, then one must also accept that moral relativism exists, and moral absolutes do not.
Tyranny of the Majority
Even if some degree of "commonality" regarding moral standards could be legitimately established within "the lifestyle", what relevance would that have? Would the simple fact that 51 % of those who identified themselves as lifestyle practioners believed in a moral absolute give them the right to impose it upon the other 49 %? I should think not. Our entire legal and governmental systems here in the US (not that I'm suggesting it has any lifestyle relevance, just an interesting note) are designed to protect against tyranny of the majority.
But most important to note is that there already exists a majority in society that finds the practice of our lifestyle to be morally objectionable. To suggest that the majority within the lifestyle have the "right" to impose moral standards upon the entire lifestyle community only affirms the right of the majority of society to impose their moral standards upon the lifestyle, and to deny us the right to participate in it. That would be endorsing a faulty line of thinking that would, in practice, eliminate the very existence of "the lifestyle".
The Fallacy of Scale
Many people seek out groups or organizations that share personal beliefs and even moral standards. It's the old saying.... birds of a feather flock together. There's nothing wrong with that at all, and we all practice it in our lives. Golfers join golf clubs. Bowlers join bowling leagues. Soccer players join soccer teams. Similarly, just by participating in lifestyle chatrooms, communities, munches, festivals, events, etc. we are seeking out those that share something in common with us; "the lifestyle". And often we seek out organizations and groups who's shared practices and beliefs are on a deeper level. They may be evident in shared protocols, rules, practices, rituals and yes, even moral standards.
But when we inculcate ourselves with those shared values on a small scale (microcosm, ie: individual group or organization), it's easy to fall prey to the false premise that those values are shared (or SHOULD be shared) on the larger scale (macrocosm, ie: the entire lifestyle). When our knowledge base is so very limited to those with identical values, morals, practices, protocols, etc. we become intolerant to the existence of those with differing values, morals, practices, protocols, etc. or even with their right to exist. That kind of provincialism is detrimental to our growth, understanding, and tolerance, and endangers the rights of others when used as the principle for imperialism and hegemony.
Rover
Copyright 2002
Contact Information
Feel free to email us if you have any suggestions or comments. We welcome all comments from our readers. Many thanks.
E-mail: webmaster@seekers.org.uk
External Links
Disclaimer
D/s seekers contains adult oriented sexual material that covers many issues relating to BDSM. Please leave NOW if you are under 18 years of age or are offended by such material. The management ask that you please exercise all caution in using any information found in any links, posts or in the website of D/s seekers. Any material placed here is believed to be either authored by the owners, or shared with permission.