What does all of this have to do with Success, Groupthink and Moral Relativism?
My wife is Thai. The article she read about success was written by a Thai social figurehead, and I think that his take is reflective of the culture in which he was brought up. But it made me think, Why define success during the formative years, as scholastic excellence? What does that show about this particular society? and how does that tie into partisanship?
In my opinion it all has to do with..
::DISCLAIMER:: If you haven't done so already, please check out Part I of this post to get the backstory. Cheers!
I believe what gives birth to this rise of a two party system is the fact that we are bred, as a population, to look to the approval of others as a way to gauge our own success in life. That's why cultures, like Thailand, hail academic performance as a benchmark for success. If your barometer for achievement is receiving top marks and praise from your parents and teachers, then you are validating yourself through the eyes of others.
I think that the majority of us do that. When we are young, we look towards our role models (parents, teachers) to show us what is just and right. If not explicitly told what to do by them, we take hints by observing their words and actions.
When we get older, we still search for validation in others. We look to politicians, newscasters, celebrities and other social figureheads to tell us what to do. We subconsciously need them to show us what is moral, what is successful, and .. what is NOT.
When more and more people look to fewer and fewer influencers to be told what to think on any issue... And when those influencers start to look to each other for answers (because they don't know what to think either).. it creates and environment that allows Groupthink to take over.
According to Wikipedia:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. src
This Groupthink tank can easily be manipulated and control. An ideal populace for Government it would seem. However..
Enter Moral Relativism...
src
According to Ethics Unwrapped, Moral relativism says that moral standards are culturally defined. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral standards around the world. src
Moral Relativism accounts for why it's ok, for example, to sunbathe nude on a beach in some countries, whereas, it would be considered morally wrong to do so in Thailand, or many other countries.
It's what dictates the existence of different more codes to make certain moral claims. Like for a vegan to think that drinking milk is immoral, while it's perfectly fine for a non-vegan.
Moral Relativism thrives in opposing political camps. If you were born in the bible-belt and raised by parents, teachers and neighbors who set and adjust their moral compass by listening to priests and Republicans, then your moral codes will be defined very differently from say someone who grew up in a metropolis, never went to church and whose parents and teachers look towards the New York Times and Democrats for where to draw their moral line.
So when an issue like abortion, or gun control gets raised.. the country is understandably divided, even if they aren't fully aware as to why..
src
