reply to post by Happy1
The idea of moral relativism is along the right track - but one has to understand that "morals" are really just a term for "socially mandated,
desirable, and promoted behaviors". Because these "morals" usually include prohibitions against the things that we tend to have a natural revulsion
to - they are accepted by society as right and proper.
This is one of the core concepts in social engineering - piggybacking your own agendas onto those that a given culture already had in place.
Subversion, alteration, or progression of those taboos might suite ones agenda, or it might not. But the point is to use those already existing,
"hardwired" predispositions to ones favor in the act of constructing new paradigms.
This can be very tricky when dealing with more than one culture. In the west, for example, we have a set of taboos that we all tend to find
universally revolting.... murder, rape, exploitation of innocents ( children and the elderly ), gross and vulgar displays of power ( bullying ), etc.
It is natural for us to feel that we can refer to these as universal evils
. But the truth of the matter is that they are not. Heck, our modern
world is built upon the model of Rome - and in Rome murder and vulgar displays of power were not just acceptable - they were the primary form of
Add to this the very real sociological reality that generations tend to rebel against the values and aesthetics of the previous generation - and one
gets a better handle on the painful and difficult truth.... The things we define as moral are actually a fluid and evolving set of principles that
can organically change, or be deliberately altered over time.
Having said that...
Behavioral modeling is not solely focused upon creating our reality or dictating our taboos. It's also very much about learning to predict our
cultural reactions to certain events - and then to use those models to create "action plans" with which to mitigate those group reactions in the
case of an external event.
Ever wonder why our society has the most violent media in the world? That's an issue that most Americans don't readily discuss our realize. But even
some of our TV shows would merit the equivalent of a XXX rating in other nations based upon their violent content. Even our closest cousins,
culturally, the British understand this. Their TV shows are taboo here because they can contain brief nudity, sexual situations, and profanity - but
very little violence. We have an opposite approach. You can see people get shot in the face on our shows, but you will never hear a truly bad word nor
see an exposed breast.
The reasons for this, to me, are obvious. Our Government wishes for us to be much more desensitized to violence as we are a much more warlike and
crime ridden society than the Brits are currently. Therefore it is in the best interest of our Government that we don't react to violent crimes and
war with revulsion. This keeps us in check and is very much part of the social engineering game.
I'll add my standard disclaimer now... This is only a single aspect of a highly complex and involved
strategy - it is by no means the only
chess piece on the board. It's just one tentacle of a much, much larger beast.