Actually coming back to this topic it reminds me of my fear of normality that I expressed on vent once.
Or rather my fear of so called 'normal' people. Most of the people who are loosely associated with 'normal' give themselves this title as it helps cement their outlook on the world. But such people are in fact the most dangerous....why? Because their normality is only agreed upon and most of them have never stepped outside their own perceptions and examined themselves within the greater structure of what could be called reality.
Once that happens a lifetime of repression and hiding from harsh truths will bring all the walls crashing down at once and you end up with a mad person, capable only of destruction. We can only hope that such people never understand or realise their own insignificance.
The other angle I fear such normality from is to do with an idea I had when reading the book 'The Lord of the Flies' many years ago at school as a child. I had this idea that there were two people; those who carried laws around in their minds and those who had to have laws set for them by an external source.
The first could be dangerous, but had a much lower chance to be so, since although all laws, (and of course im not talking legal here), are set originally by an external source, the environment we are raised in for example, these people are able to pick them apart, understand their position and point and hold onto them without the original source to give them it's structure.
The second is almost always a high chance of being dangerous, because for them laws are what they are told they are and they need to be reminded constantly, but if you remove them from this influence they become feral and violent because nothing is now influenceing them to consider or compare, instead they merely reason in a most base manner, using the most basic and instinctual reasons to act upon.
The final angle is that if a large group of people could call themselves normal, it is only by a set standard of group and environment agreement that they are 'normal'. Thus if someone changes the environment and a different normal becomes the new normal, you end up with people agreeing upon the most heinous acts as being normal, because it feels familiar and they have become accustomed to it. Good examples of this are ancient, (and not so ancient), rules of conduct and so called honour. Murder out of pride as justified because the current climate dicates that it is normal to do so.
Or hangings, they would be normal too, afterall it would be something people became accustomed to. Political correctness could be said to be an example of this; for social injustice, the acknowledgment of prejudice and righting what could roughly be called 'wrongs' is never a bad thing. But being induced to have a knee-jerk reaction over the slightest injustice or implied insult or prejudice, is completely counter-intuitive and does more damage than good.
Of course my modern moral sensibilities are indoctrinated into me from my environment, but I can carry them with me where I will now, separated from the source and adapted by experience and understanding. So the human world is a constant battle of environments, each of them dictating rules and morals, some of them coming to the same conclusions by different avenues, but many conflict and are negative and dangerous to the progress of our species.
Let's hope the most beneficial ones win out...