9 0

Is normativity a valid point of reference for backing arguments?

My stance on normativity pertains to the specific case of mandatory social conformism.

Social conformity in all spheres is not legitimate.

That means when someone attacks something by saying "people think this is normal, but it's not" or "this is not a normal thing", then what they are saying is automatically drivel.

Life and existence are necessarily and in part defined by approach and attainment. That truth, in all cases, excludes normal life and normativity as necessarily true conclusions.


After some thinking, I have concluded that this is not necessarily true, because in the complementary cases, even in the highest norms, there is very plausibly a demand for conformity, but that doesn't mean that vox populi and other vulgar norms are any better than they already are.

DZhukovin 7 June 22

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Normal is a subjective term. It implies a mean average of a sample. It's an argument from consensus and a weak one at that. What one determines as normal only illustrates a structure of biases based on personal experience. I take heed of it in the same light as anecdotal evidence.

No no, the use of normal here is "of the norm" and these norms are embodied in laws, customs, etc. which are learnable in books. People are in fact imputed to read these books or have the necessary breadth of experience to learn these things.


I think that we are normatively constituted.

If so then to ask if "Is normativity a valid point of reference for backing arguments?" involves a circularity, since our language in itself is normative. The words and the meanings we attach to those words have historical meanings, and if we don't follow language's normative structures then we risk being misunderstood.

"Life and existence are necessarily and in part defined by approach and attainment. That truth, in all cases, excludes normal life and normativity as necessarily true conclusions."

Life and existence are necessarily contingent and they are defined by our being in the world. There is no such thing as absolute truth, or necessary truth ( to assert these is to assert god).

What truth there is, is all about normative roles we assume in life, all the rest is conjecture, based on premises which can be affirmed or denied.

cava Level 7 June 23, 2018

This is a conundrum question because everyone has a slightly different perspective of what normal is. Example putting the toilet paper on a roll putting it over the top might seem like common sense because it is easier to spin towards you from the top. Another might think that pulling it from the bottom makes more sense because it is easier to pull. Then another might not like it on the roller at all because it is a hassle. Then another might not use it at all because they prefer the bidets. So what is normal, an agreed upon choice? So who`s choice has a more perceived efficient way of accomplishing a goal?

azzow2 Level 9 June 23, 2018

I think in this case normal is used in its true sense; of the majority.


normal can be found on your dryer settings, what people mean by normal, is what is most common. its painting things with a large brush, for brevity in a conversation. sure there will always be the exception. atheist are the exception normally< lol


When people use the word "normal" they most often mean "typical" or "expected". There is no automatic virtue in that. Quite often it cloaks mediocrity and unimaginitiveness.

Norms vary in their usefulness as touchstones for how one "ought" to act. It's better to have considered and defensible reasons for why you do what you do. Better, but harder.

Of course norms are a shortcut that people do use. My wife has a favorite exclamation, "who DOES that?!" when someone does something she thinks particularly egregious. But I keep telling her, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't do something or frown on something, it matters if its right or wrong to some reasonable intersubjective standard.


I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at.


Guess if they are happy with all C's then the norm is good enough for them but not for us.


You may need to further clarify.


Normal for me may not be normal for you. We should sort out what we want to talk about well ahead of arguing. I do not want to argue.

I don't always like arguing. But I want to argue that you shouldn't argue if you don't want to, nor should people press you to, and I argue that I wronged you by making you think I wanted to argue with you.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:113561
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.