Social Norms: The Sole Legislator Of Morality

However, if the government is portrayed as being the sole legislator of morality, a major concept is practically thrown aside: social norms. While some laws are definitely needed to maintain civility and avoid total anarchy, if morality is not entirely legislated, society most likely would not immediately tear itself to pieces as people still have social norms that they would follow, and ideas of right or wrong established by the general public. Despite Aristotle’s belief that all social norms remain the same, these social norms might change over the years depending on society; however, they will always exist at some level due to the way people function around each other. People are social beings, an idea that must not be thrown away to fit

They are rules that are not always enforced by law, yet are generally followed despite this fact (Zasu 2007, 379). While it is true that the norms that develop within a specific society or culture do not always necessarily improve individuals or society, these norms still tend to reflect moral values within a culture regardless of benefit. Even without the presence of laws enforcing behavior, social norms are still enforced by society’s social standards (Sunstein 1996, 915). For example, concepts like political correctness or norms against certain levels of aggression or violence exist regularly in society as a whole.

Furthermore, most social norms are also not generally universal or “eternal” as Aristotle would argue. What is considered a “good” norm may vary across time or place, making an actual definition of “good” difficult to legitimately establish. Some societies might share similar norms by chance, but not every society will do the same due to the cultural variability found throughout the

If citizens do not comply with the government-set moral code, they appear to be considered less human. However, if they simply blindly follow the laws that have been established and do not use a certain degree of reason themselves, they are then considered by Aristotle to be not acting human. This is somewhat contradictory and limits the things citizens can actually do within the ideal state that Aristotle describes. If they are not acting human, then they technically would not have the same rights as