5,984
edits
Can’t vs Mustn’t: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Can't-vs-Mustn't.jpg|thumb]] | [[File:Can't-vs-Mustn't.jpg|thumb]] | ||
'''Can’t vs Mustn’t''' is a conceptual framework describing distinctions between legal prohibitions, cultural taboos, and moral discouragements. The distinction is prominently articulated by '''Eric Weinstein''', who emphasizes the role of culture in sustaining boundaries of acceptable behavior and speech, particularly in relation to free expression. | |||
== Overview == | |||
The framework identifies three layers of constraint: | |||
* '''Shouldn’t''': Actions discouraged on moral or social grounds but not strongly enforced or prohibited. | |||
* '''Mustn’t''': Actions considered socially or culturally taboo. These are treated as unthinkable regardless of legality, with enforcement rooted in cultural norms rather than law. | |||
* '''Can’t''': Actions prohibited by law, formally codified, and punishable through the legal system. | |||
== Cultural enforcement == | |||
Weinstein argues that cultural "mustn’ts" are essential to sustaining societal order without overreliance on legal systems. If taboos weaken, behaviors once regarded as unthinkable may gain acceptance, producing pressure for legislatures to codify prohibitions. In this view, the erosion of cultural enforcement can lead to an expansion of formal legal prohibitions. | |||
== Relationship to free speech == | |||
The framework is frequently discussed in relation to freedom of speech: | |||
* '''Mustn’t''' operates as a cultural boundary, discouraging certain forms of speech or action that remain legally permissible. | |||
* The decline of such taboos can create demands to shift behaviors from "mustn’t" to "can’t," thereby inviting legal restrictions. | |||
* Weinstein contends that this dynamic threatens the long-term stability of free expression, as constitutional or legal guarantees cannot substitute for strong cultural norms. | |||
== Examples == | |||
* '''Flag burning''': Legally protected in the United States, but often regarded as something one ''mustn’t'' do in cultural terms. | |||
* '''Celebration of political assassination''': Typically considered unthinkable within cultural contexts, even if not explicitly prohibited by law. | |||
== Implications == | |||
The framework suggests that: | |||
* '''Culture precedes law''': Legal restrictions tend to follow cultural shifts rather than initiate them. | |||
* '''Norm preservation''': Societies that fail to sustain cultural "mustn’ts" risk replacing them with expanded legal "can’ts." | |||
* '''Freedom and restraint''': A functioning balance requires strong cultural enforcement mechanisms alongside formal legal protections. | |||
== On X == | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
| Line 121: | Line 150: | ||
* [[Degraded State]] | * [[Degraded State]] | ||
* [[Free Speech]] | |||
* [[Free Speech, Free Minds, Free Markets (YouTube Content)]] | |||
* [[Load-Bearing Fictions]] | * [[Load-Bearing Fictions]] | ||
* [[Oral Torah]] | * [[Oral Torah]] | ||