Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1622@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 13:03:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1622
Posted: Fri Aug 30 13:03:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:45:43 EDT
References: <1380@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1599@pyuxd.UUCP> <1431@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 44

>>  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).  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.

> 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.

I take it from your sentence above that you do not find "this kind of
mentality" (i.e., a "goal of life to bend your will to another's") repugnant.
Let's face it, Charles, you haven't shown a benefit yet for people conforming,
especially not in the manner you describe above. Oh, to be sure, you have
shown that it may be thought of as a good idea for OTHER PEOPLE to conform.
That would be a benefit to YOU, because it would "minimize tensions and the
need for rethinking", if OTHER PEOPLE conformed.  Obviously you don't see
encouraging others to conform in this way through bogus indoctrination as
despicable, in much the same way that you did not see vile proselytizing as
despicable.  It seems clear that, indeed, the REAL REASONS behind your morality
is YOUR convenience:  you personally have decided to give up on your
individuality, and you feel others should do the same in order to 
"minimize thinking".  Is that it?  I find the notion that other people should
conform to make it easier for you to not have to think about dealing with
people as individuals to be repugnant in the extreme.  Anyone who's been
indoctrinated to give up his/her individuality in favor of a philosophy that
extols "bending your will to another's" is a victim of the foulest of lies.
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr