Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1431@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 23:07:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1431
Posted: Wed Aug 28 23:07:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 06:38:51 EDT
References: <1380@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1599@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 62

In article <1599@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>>>Why would we value things like freedom or conformity?  Because they would
>>>maximize something in our lives.  Freedom maximizes our own lives, enabling
>>>us to make our own choices, to do what's best for us and our wants and
>>>desires.  Conformity maximizes benefits to that nebulous thing called
>>>society.  It makes it easier for society to do its business, whatever that
>>>may be.  It makes it easier to categorize us, to perform (what's the word
>>>I'm looking for?---sociometric?) studies, to exercise marketing strategies,
>>>and maybe to deal with other people ourselves without bothering to think of
>>>them as individuals.  Benefit to individual people?  Hardly any worth
>>>speaking of.  It all boils down to the old question:  which is more
>>>important, the society or its members?  Clearly if society is more
>>>important, then let's get rid of us people, we only get in the way of
>>>the proper functioning of society by merely being people.  If not, I
>>>think it's clear what the answer is. Society exist to perform functions
>>>for its members, not the other way around.

>> Conformity has the enourmous advantage (to many people, anyway) that it
>> minimizes tensions amoung the members of a group.  It allows trust, even
>> reliance upon the actions of others.  It conserves the energy both of
>> society as whole and of individuals, by reducing the need to re-think and
>> readapt every time a situation appears.  All of these benefits hew directly
>> to individuals.  The phrasing of Rich's listing of benefits makes it
>> abundantly clear that this his own private evaluation of the relative
>> merits of these benefits.  I myself would rank conformity much higher,
>> though not paramount.  Others would value it still the more.  This
>> evaluation isn't at> all objective; it's all based on which benefits
>> Rich is willing to give up, and which he feels he must have.

>  All the cases you offer above represent
>sacrifices:  how much of your individuality do you give up in order to
>"minimize tensions" and "reduce the need to rethink"?  (Funny, I would think
>that rethinking and readapting were positive constructive things that cause
>growth and learning and improved adaptability.  Sometimes it seems that
>people that talk about the pleasures of conformity are really seeking to
>"reduce the need to think", period.)  Ideally, you shouldn't have to give
>up any of it.  In a perfect ideal world, you could have both minimal
>"tensions" and complete individuality.  However, there is no ideal world
>that we know of, and I doubt that there is one, specifically because
>human beings have needs and wants that may conflict (e.g., two people
>wanting the same thing).  So, in the words of the immortal Karl Malden:
>"What WILL you do?"  Isn't minimal morality the best compromise?  What
>real benefits are gained from coercing people to conform to "minimize
>thinking" or whatever it was you said, Charles?  What you get is a dull,
>stagnant, lethargic society, ridiculously predictable and boring, and
>(more importantly) unable to adapt to change or to engage in any creative
>solutions to problems.  Moreover, there will always be those "number six"
>types who resist your standards, who don't fit into your perfect mold,
>who will wind up causing even more tension in the long run (tension that
>a predictable conformist society is ill equipped to deal with).

I see. The purpose of man is to develop individuality.  Of course, if
individuality doesn't interest you, or in the presence of other goals, this
argument isn't of much interest.  THere are plenty of people out there who
feel that the goal of life is to bend their will utterly to another's.  Your
oft-avowed repugnance for this kind of mentality indicates to me that we are
finally getting down into the real reasons behind your morality.

Charley Wingate

  The wind blows where it pleases