taurocoprology for psych class

[justashooter 430]

Man Is The Measure Of All Things

Protagoras’ Position: Did We Really Get It Right?

When Protagoras wrote that “man is the measure of all things” he was implying that our individual and social mores are based on our own experiences, rather than some immutable supernatural order of existence. He believed that each of us had a hand in determining what is right and what is wrong through expression of our own experience. He insisted that we, as social units, could determine for ourselves what were and were not acceptable behaviors on basis of our own predilection. This belief system persists in our society to this day, having adequate though shaken basis even in this modern world in which conflict of ideals is as easy to arrange as a plane ticket to China.

Moral relativism is a philosophical form that centers upon the conception that knowledge is obtained by each individual or group of individuals by their own experience and observation, and that such knowledge is the basis of individual and cultural mores. When viewed in its cultural form this school of thought is difficult to refute, and is the basis for most modern governments, and most modern social structures. The basis of such governments, Judeo-Christian and eastern religions, share a common standard. Each assumes that the cultural well being is first and foremost in priority in ensuring the survival of the culture, relegating the concept of individual well being to a weak second.

Most cultures in the CE have been able to function within the concept of cultural moral relativism, using its structure to weed out those individuals lacking the maturity to exist within its limits. CMR is a self regulating and self administering system that is finely tuned to the needs of the survival of the culture, but it works best when the culture is isolated. The free exchange of culture brought about by the technological age of recent centuries has put CMR to the test. The result of the test is simply the adaptation of the CMR, within the limits of the acceptance of its principal proponent group.

When cultures with varying relativistic structures come into a common environment natural conflicts arise. What is acceptable to one group of individuals in the common environment may not be acceptable to another group of individuals. A prime example would be the Latin culture concept of “rapio”, in which a man may rape a young woman without her consent or even legal age, and avoid punishment by simply agreeing to marry the girl. This kind of thing is considered quite acceptable in Mexico, but has not played well in California, which is peopled by a large percentage of Anglos and is subject to American law. As a result of legal action and considerable press in regard to the unacceptability of the practice, its expression has diminished.

The value of CMR is in that it is given with respect to the interests of the group, rather than the individual. As such it meets a primary directive of the human animal, the perpetuation of the species. Without the survival of the group, what use is the one?

[Nagishkaw 510]

That's deep.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't know if there are many, if any, isolated cultures where this concept of CMR holds true. Remember that the Spanish Conquistadors ventured into the Americas in search of gold. They were known to have their way with the native women, while back home, they had live by a different set of social mores. Mexico, like most countries have experienced interaction and exchange with outsiders and it would be simplistic to attribute a certain social behavior to their culture without understanding the root of it.