“The penalty transforms, modifies, establishes signs, arranges obstacles. What use would it be if it had to be permanent? A penalty that had no end would be contradictory: all the constraints that is imposes on the convict and of which, having become virtuous once more, he would never be able to take advantage, would be little better than torture; and the effort made to reform him would be so much trouble and expense lost by society.”–Foucault
If we wish, we may observe the increased specialization of science or academic research through a moral lens. For example, if we consider the science
In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim argues that the collective conscience, or the social integrating force of morality, progressively diminishes, and the focus
Luhmann argued that moral communication loses influence in a functionally differentiated society because the function system are amoral. Moral communication cannot compete with the communication
As the noble/common distinction lost influence from the second half of the 18th century onward, it seems to have been replaced by a number of
If, for the sake of argument, we say that values have nothing to do with social change, where does that leave us? Setting out this way implies that we’re not necessarily looking for the truth. We are, rather, making the conditional proposition known as If p, then q. If changing values do not produce social change, we can attribute social change to something else.