Since this is my second post on my blog I've considered this topic the most important to me for particular reasons.
I will preface this post by stating that I'm a male to female transsexual and a bit of an odd nerdy punk sort of girl.
Is there a rational basis for individual expression? What I mean by that question is it rational to be an individual?
What rational basis do I have for being myself rather than conforming to the mandate of others or society in general?
The answer seems complex, but it's rather simple[atleast for myself]. The rational basis for individual expression is that the individual has to live her/his own actions, goals, and choices. How this effects individual expression is that each person is never exactly alike in their choices. One person may choose to do the same action but slightly different, or better as s/he perceives it to be. Another person may choose to do an action in total opposition to the previous choice. No one can be held to account for choices not taken, but only the ones s/he has done.
The consequence of this line of reasoning also means that individual expression has consequences. Someone may choose to steal, kill, or violate the rights of another, but are still held into account for those choices/actions. This makes moral choices and value judgements the sole responsibility of the individual rather than some other agency.
Moral choices and value judgements premised on individual expression[and responsibility] are given a deeper meaning to that individual which holds them. That means another individual may value believing in a religion and another does not, but both are able to retain a faculty to make moral choices[or not]. One person could be a Methodist and the other a Buddhist, but still have the same rational moral system underlying.
The variance in values does not make one more moral over another, so long as the basic moral structure of individualism is retained.
What do I mean by the 'basic moral structure of individualism'? Simply put, the morality of individualism is as follows:
1. I live for my values, never demanding others to be subject to my values or the consequences of those values.
Think of a vegan not being forced to go to my cookout if I'm planning to grill up steaks. Or forcing a Christian to listen to a George Carlin rant about Jesus. And vice versa.
2. I also am not subject to the values of others or the consequences of their own values.
See above.
3. I cannot interfere or harm others that do not harm me or others.
Think of a person that has more holes in his head from piercings, but keeps to her/himself causing no problems or harming no others and in contrast to the every-man sociopathic killer that has been killing dozens of people for years, which causes harm.
And these are the basic principles of a moral individual.
Ultimately, this leads to the subject of a rational basis of individual expression. An individual has the moral impetus to express her/himself whether or not others approve so long as the moral structure as spoken of previously is in play. A person could be a tattoo fan, and have them all over his/her body, but owns her/his own business, thus causing no harm and even being a benefit of being a productive individual. This could be contrasted with the drug addict that steals from others and never holds down a job. This is true harm on two fronts. The individual causes direct harm to others by theft and indirect harm by not being productive.
When I apply this argument to my own life as a transgendered woman, it seems to work for a number of reasons. First, I'm being honest in that I'm not heterosexual rather that I'm bisexual, and transgendered. That honesty allows me to be true to my values[self-reliance, moral treatment of others, and etc]. Second, my honesty harms no one. Another person cannot be harmed even if their 'sensibilities' are offended. Being offensive aesthetically is not the dictionary definition of harm, nor is it equivocal to indirect harm. Third, I'm able to pursue my own values[as I stated before] to their fullest, not bogged down in fear or doubt of my own sense of self[considering a sense of self is necessary to moral faculty]. This all takes into account the basic premise that the moral structure of individualism is in play.
Although, it could be construed that my choices are harmful, but how could there be harm in self expression that is not based in that harm? Do children become harmed at the sight of an androgynous or feminine male[It's not like I wear thong bikinis and stilettos in public or private...]? Does my mere presence exude a poisonous fume? Clearly, there is no harm from individualism of this sort.
In the end, the rational basis of individual expression is clearly evident when one takes the time to consider there is a moral basis for being an individual[as spoken of previously]. And that it is a more practical method of existence rather than to placate to collective mandate or government codes[pseudo-laws].
-- Bridget
