Table of Contents
The Irresistible Appeal of Prescriptive Morality
As far as I'm concerned, the immorality of deviant behavior is only at issue epistemologically. In coercive social contexts such as are prevalent nowadays, morality practically connotes ethical normality. In other words, when ethical standards are set by a moral agenda, all abnormal behavior (i.e., immorality) is judged deviant (i.e., ethically aberrant) and the philosophical problem does not arise in practice.
The Absurdity of the Zero-Tolerance Mindset
Unfortunately, defining the philosophical problem away has serious practical consequences. Indeed, the ensuing radically consequent belief that all deviant behavior should be suppressed absolutely “for the Greater Good” – is (however seductive to some) logically untenable. Fortunately, though, this is easy to show.
But, before we get to that, let us enjoy a brief educational interlude. [or not]
The Evolutionary Origins of Morality
The Dangers of Enforcing Normal Behavior
Once one understands how normative behaviors in a group arise as evolutionary responses, it is not difficult to see that the same group necessarily depends on the deviant, ethical behavior of at least some of its members for its continued demographic success in the face of change. Any collective that seeks to guarantee the moral behavior of every last individual is actually aspiring to be superceded and subsumed at best — or to become extinct culturally and genetically at worst.
The Survival of the Misfittest
Therefore, I embrace deviance and reject intolerance — and flatter myself that I do so for the greater good. To me, tolerating (and even indulging in) a modicum of creative deviance is a small price to pay for a group insurance policy that boasts universal coverage and time-tested effectiveness. Can you come up with a better plan for the greater good?