system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The phrase "that's just the way things are" shouldn't be considered valid justification for cultural norms

From time to time, society takes a step back and needs to reconsider whether certain cultural norms are worth preserving. We're currently seeing a huge paradigm shift on how we perceive people smoking marijuana, for example.

There are plenty of catalysts for these reversals, but a large component involves people seriously thinking about whether accepted beliefs are good for society. This often involves people discussing what the merits of a social norm are.

During these discussions, people often reply with "that's just the way things are." This is a non-answer, and when I find myself discussing this sort of thing, I don't see it as a good reason to keep the norm. Of course, it's not a reason to discard it either.

When people say this, it usually means one of two things. Often it just means that they don't understand why the rule is in place, but agree with it. This is fine, but we should really take a deep look at why some of these norms exist.

Sometimes it's just a way of blindly following the status quo. I'm of the opinion that shaking up the norm is sometimes required, so this feels unsatisfactory as well. Change my view.

Edit: I should clarify a few things. My view is centered around critical discussions, which I realize aren't exceptionally common. If you're not intent on digging into the real reason a norm exists, that phrase may be plenty.

The phrase isn't a good reason to support a norm, but it also isn't a reason not to. Most people aren't aware of why we follow a norm, simply because the reason is often nuanced and complex or understood subconsciously. This isn't a reason not to support a norm, but it isn't a reason to support it either.
gpt
This is a fundamental component to the difference between conservatives and progressives. 

There is a *reasonable* (though not conclusive) argument that a cultural norm which has "stood the test of time" shouldn't be overturned without specific evidence that the change is beneficial, because absent any evidence to the contrary, the fact that it has been preserved for a long time indicates that *some* people are deriving value for that norm or that it is preventing some harm, most likely quite broadly if it is truly a "cultural norm".

Basically, it's a claim about the burden of proof for changing a cultural norm. If the norm has been around for a long time, who should have to provide evidence that it will be a) harmful or b) harmless to change it?

Whether or not you agree with people that say "whoever wants to change it" and "harmless" to that question, it's not an empty statement with no validity to it.