I guess one had to ask which society and which standard, especially since they are both in a constant state of flux.

Society as in whatever society we belong to no matter its beliefs.

The real life issue is that it is impossible to define and we are constantly being pushed and pulled by standards and rules from all over what it be at work, by government, in the family, religious and non-religious organizations, our individual center, the friends we hang with, etc.. We all do the best we can and our own sense is often conflicted and challenged by the many groups we bring to. It's a good case for becoming a hermit.

Heidegger confined himself to the standards of nazism, and perhaps he thought it was a duty. But I think it was bad judgement evoked in a bad society, and arguably his murky philosophy made him susceptible to it.

"Is it our duty as members of society to confine ourselves to it's standards?" — protectedplastic

The initial or default answer is "yes, because initially the individual has little choice in the standards received from society." Later, though, as the individual learns and experiences life, he is able to actively accept or reject the standards of society, and make adaptations. The first active rejection of social standards is often in college, or somewhat earlier.

The young will always run into resistance when they challenge the established standards. This is appropriate. The rebellious young are not always right (and neither are the elders).

Peace is negotiated.

Is it our duty as members of society to confine ourselves to it's standards? — protectedplastic

What is a "duty"?

One might say it's an agent's duty to do what seems right, or what seems best, or what seems most appropriate... to the agent in each set of circumstances.

Thus characterized, one's sense of one's own duty may conflict with norms of action prevalent in any community to which one belongs. One's sense of one's own duty, and the actions that follow from it, may conflict with the attitudes and judgments of one's peers.

As has pointed out, each of us belongs to a variety of communities, and the same individual may be a member of communities with conflicting norms.

Along these lines, it seems it's always up to the individual to determine his own conception of right action.


I suppose one way for an individual to reduce potential conflicts that require special choices would be to prioritize one clear communal standard and aim to align one's sense of duty, or right action, with that standard. This practice would give rise to its own special conflicts: For instance, whenever the individual cannot bring himself to agree with the communal standard he has prioritized, and thus feels torn between the communal standard and his own best judgment. In such cases we might say there is a conflict of two standards of duty or right action, and once again the individual is forced to choose among competing standards. I suppose if this choice is made consistently enough over time, it becomes a habit. There's no need for individuals to aim to reduce the strain of their personal burden of moral responsibility this way; it's only another choice. Arguably it's also a recipe for cognitive dissonance and bad faith.

Some communities, or perhaps all communities, have norms pertaining to dissent, or norms pertaining to the rejection of norms. In some communities, failure to conform with some rules triggers consequences most members consider severe, while failure to conform with other rules triggers consequences many members consider negligible. This suggests that in such communities, some rules are considered more valuable and unbreakable than others. Arguably, the fact that rules are or must be enforced by negative consequences for rule-breakers shows that rule-breaking and dissent belong to the community and to the system of communal norms: Dissent at your own risk.


How do we define "community"? We might speak of "communities of dissent" (for a given rule in a given community; for any rule in a given community; for any rule in any community) even where members of a community of dissenters are unaware of the existence of other members. We might say the "norms" associated with such communities are entailed by its members' action and ideas of action:

For instance, it seems anyone who rejects a communal norm because he thinks it wrong or unjust, and because it conflicts with his own sense of what's right and just, belongs to the same community of dissenters defined by this very principle of action.

If we agree to define communities and communal norms this way, then it seems there may be no way to act without abiding by the norms of some community or other, even if it's a community of dissenters one has never encountered.

That puts some spin on the thought that it's not a question of whether we have a duty to abide by community standards, but only a question of which communities we choose to belong to and which standards we choose to live by.

What is a "duty"?

I think that's a great question. If duty is defined as 'a task or action that someone is required to perform' then the question who requires and why it is required come up. There are many answers to this question from our need to survive to our need pay taxes...ultimately (I think) it is my acceptance of a duty that makes it a duty for me.

I think there is a difference between societal imperatives/norms and individual duties. While individual duties may evolve from societal norms, it is my take on these norms that I manifest in my actions. If there is any objectivity to duty, it may lie in this structure, which seems applicable to all societies. If there is a utility to the actions of a society then can't we judge a society's morality on utilitarian principles or perhaps by virtue theory where justice would be societies most valuable virtue (Plato).

If duty is defined as 'a task or action that someone is required to perform' then the question who requires and why it is required come up. There are many answers to this question from our need to survive to our need pay taxes...ultimately (I think) it is my acceptance of a duty that makes it a duty for me. — Cavacava

I'm strongly inclined to agree. The only thing that makes a duty or obligation binding as such is the agent's agreement that he has the duty or obligation in question.


I suppose that sort of agreement is different from following a rule merely for the sake of consequences. To agree that I am duty-bound or obliged to perform a certain action is in general to have a sense of obligation regardless of consequences.

Perhaps that's hard to clear up: If I perform the action merely because I expect failure to do so will result in a punishment, then I have not performed it from a sense of duty or obligation. Specify, further, that the expected punishment is something "external", an action others will take to correct me, not merely an internal feeling of remorse.

What about empathy for another's unhappiness, or harm to another, brought on by my refusal to act? This seems a fuzzy boundary. Arguably such feelings of empathy projected into consideration of prospective actions and consequences are the ordinary basis of the human sense of obligation. But it's not clear how to distinguish this sort of mechanism from an "anticipation of punishment".

I avoid the "punishment" of my own potential feelings of remorse, when I consider how my actions might affect others. In this respect, it seems that acting from an ordinary sense of duty or obligation typically involves a sort of concern for punishments.

I think there is a difference between societal imperatives/norms and individual duties. While individual duties may evolve from societal norms, it is my take on these norms that I manifest in my actions. If there is any objectivity to duty, it may lie in this structure, which seems applicable to all societies. — Cavacava

The objectivity of duty might be said to consist, for instance, in the biological bases of obligation and norms in general, but also in the particular norms or particular sources of norms that one happens to consider himself obliged with respect to. For instance, if I am a soldier and I believe that it's my duty to obey orders, there is an objective standard of obligation for me. If I want to eat healthy, and feel some obligation to do so, there are objective standards of right nutrition I can and should use to guide my action and to inform my principles of action.

The fact that there are "objective" bases of duty in us, and "objective" (and potentially conflicting) sources and standards of duty that we may or may not feel obliged to respect, does not resolve any questions whatsoever about what individual agents in general are obliged to do. It seems there is nothing that individual agents in general are obliged to do. And it seems there is nothing that individual agents in general are obliged to do in a given cultural context.

It seems the standard of obligation is always in each one of us, always a matter of personal responsibility, no matter how informed by cultural context and rooted in biological bases.

Is it our duty as members of society to confine ourselves to it's standards?

It is the duty of the society to confine the individual to its standards. Not the other way round. For this to make sense we need to study the solitary individual. An individual is a complex of wants, hopes, dreams, proclivities, emotions, etc. Some of these may be good for the health of a social order, others maybe harmful. It is the latter traits/tendencies that need to be confined. As for the former, they need care and nurture.

Strangely the fundamental unit of society is the individual. How a group of individuals, each with its own vested interests, cooperate to form a cohesive, ultimately benefitting each and every member, social group is anyone's guess.

I wouldn't say it is a duty, but more a necessity from each members point of view. The society to be integral and cohesive must have its member minimaly convergent to each other.

It could be that because we see each member converging in terms of general preferences (A.K.A culture) each one of us can fell pressured to do the same.

"Is it our duty as members of society to confine ourselves to its standards?"

How would the notion that you might have such a duty even occur to you?

Isn't this just being moral? Society agrees that it is bad to litter. Littering then becomes immoral. If the society feels it needs a god to back the morality, then they print the word of that god and put something in it that implies the badness of littering. If you choose to ignore the standard, society might decide on a deterrent, even if it amounts only to disapproval of the group.

To the extent that I'll get in trouble if I don't. Otherwise my duty is to my integrity, and my ability to stay in my own good graces.

We owe a duty of fidelity to those groups with whom we share thick moral relationships (e.g. family, friends, and core communities). To apply the obligation to all of society would be an overextension and would be setting oneself up for inevitable disappointment and feelings of betrayal.

Along these lines, it seems it's always up to the individual to determine his own conception of right action. — Cabbage Farmer

Sure, but the problem with this is the same problem when everyone gets to interpret the sacred scrolls for themselves, and decide what God or the gods are about. You end up with ten thousand different interpretations.

Is that how we want morality to be? Simply up to the individual to define? One might think that is okay with faith, but do we really want everyone determining their own rules of behavior? Not everyone shares the same values. We don't do this with rules of the road, at least not in the part of the world I live in, and driving is mostly sane and relatively safe. I wouldn't want someone to decide that running red lights or driving on the sidewalk is okay for them. Of course some do, but there are well defined penalties for doing so, and everyone else is fine with this (because we do want to discourage dangerous driving behavior).

Of course the other side to this is that society's rules can be bad too. And individual deciding to exact revenge is limited in the amount of damage they can do. A group of people can do a lot more. But on the other hand, there is more wisdom from the group, and certainly over time, than one individual, with their own personality quirks and biases.

If left to my own devices, I would probably default to tribal mentality of duty, and to hell with strangers. But the society grew up in has these peculiar notions about treating people fairly and equally, and discouraging one group trying to take advantage of everyone else. That sense of societal duty has arisen over millennia of people having to live together in groups larger than tribes, and constantly dealing with strangers.

Is that how we want morality to be? Simply up to the individual to define? One might think that is okay with faith, but do we really want everyone determining their own rules of behavior? — Marchesk

Yes, that's the last stage of moral development, at least according to Kohlberg.

but there are well defined penalties for doing so — Marchesk

Don't confuse morality with legality. Laws enforce order, not the moral sense.

If left to my own devices, I would probably default to tribal mentality of duty, and to hell with strangers. — Marchesk

And would you call that morality?


The duty of the members of a society is to shape and reshape its standards, at least according to Plato.

Is that how we want morality to be? Simply up to the individual to define? — Marchesk

Whether you want that or not, it's all you can get. Don't confuse that people can be influenced by expressed moral stances with morality itself. Each individual still has to make their own judgments. And often, public behavior that seems in line with (commonly) expressed moral stances is rather manipulative--it's done solely to avoid censure, ostracization, being fired, being imprisioned, etc. It's not done because the person is acting in accordance with their moral views.

I'm pretty sure most of my moral values come from growing up in the society I grew up in and not from myself. If I had grown up in ancient Sparta, I'm going to guess my fundamental values would be a little different.

I'm pretty sure most of my moral values come from growing up in the society I grew up in and not from myself. If I had grown up in ancient Sparta, I'm going to guess my fundamental values would be a little different. — Marchesk

Again, your values can be (and will be to some extent) influenced by your culture, but they can't literally be given to you by your culture. You have to decide whether you agree or disagree with any value you encounter, and you have to actually experience the feeling of valuing it or not. Someone else can't give that to you.

It depends on the standards of the society...

If society expected me to willingly allow part of my genitals to be removed, then rebellion is in order.

If society expected me to live as the property of another, then rebellion is in order.

If society expected me to take the life of an innocent person, rebellion.

There are all kinds of lines which I wouldn't cross for duty or really anything else...