Some norms are bad. Norms of revenge, female genital mutilation, honor killings, and other norms strike us as destructive, cruel, and wasteful. The puzzle is why so many people see these norms as authoritative and why these norms often resist change. To answer these questions, we need to look at what “bad” norms are and how we can evaluate them. Here I develop an integrative analysis of norms that aims to avoid parochialism in norm evaluation. After examining and rejecting several evaluative standards, I propose what I call a comparative-functional analysis of norms that is both operationalizable/testable and nonparochial, and that can sort better and worse norms. One conclusion of this approach is that norms are not so much “bad” and “good” as “better” and “worse.” This approach should be of interest to theorists and practitioners alike.
Thrasher, John. “Evaluating Bad Norms.” Social Philosophy & Policy, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, pp. 196-216. doi: 10.1017/S0265052518000055
Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation
Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Other Philosophy Commons, Other Sociology Commons, Politics and Social Change Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, Sociology of Culture Commons, Sociology of Religion Commons