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: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1472@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 00:48:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1472
Posted: Wed Sep  4 00:48:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 04:01:24 EDT
References: <1622@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 93

In article <1622@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>> 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.

I've sort of come to the conclusion that, in and of itself, conformity has
no moral significance.  Its moral value seems entirely dependent upon the
situation.

I should also note here that conformity is, after all, a question of
individual choice.  To take a sufficiently extreme example, there are many
people who choose to join the Marines, and who (evidently) value the
discipline and the high degree of conformity it engenders.  I happen to
place a considerably higher value on my own independence (although I do not
value it absolutely, above all other things).  I am aware, however, that
others rank these things differently, and value different loci of conformity
and independence.  WHich leads us to the next passage...

>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.

What you mean is that you haven't seen a benefit for YOU, and you alone.
The whole reason I brought this up was because it had become apparent to me
that this rupugnance towards conformity is really quite important to your
moral system.  Others have quite different feelings about it.  Some people
simply never bother to think about whether to conform.  I happen to think
that this is quite wrong, but nevertheless, I choose to conform in many
cases, but it is my choice, which I have thought over.

Many people do in fact find it easier to conform.  It means that you do not
have to resist the pressure to conform, you don't have to worry about what
to do.  I would like to believe that people are morally obligated to resist
these pressures, but it seems to me that resisting the will of "society"
isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Then we go on to this little blast....

>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.

I'm going to pass on the morality of "bending one's will to another"
because, as I stated above, I think its immorality is in fact unclear (at
least to me, if not to Rich).  I will not, however, let Rich's usual stupid
accusations about my beliefs passed unnoticed.  [This is a flame, in case
you care to avert your eyes.] 

Mr. Rosen is hardly one to talk about "vile proselytizing" when his constant
outpourings in this and other groups are taken into account.  He also
presumes to advise others on the basis of his own objectively-derived
prejudices.  He also (quite consistently) chooses to ignore conformity as a
choice, in the face of his own rather obvious choice not to conform.

Since Mr. Rosen has chosen to state as fact what, considering his vast
ignorance of my religious, mental, and social development, can only be
considered to be the baldest of lies, let me set the record straight.
Unlike many people, I have at a number of points given up my previous
religious beliefs.  I am not a member of the denomination into which I was
baptized; this change was the result of a period of evaluation and thought.
I have at times given myself over to various disciplines, atheletic and
otherwise.  In point of fact, the path I have taken with my life has
required the utmost in consideration of my individuality.

THere seems to be an American obsession with non-conformism.  Unfortunately,
what often passes for individuality is mere stubbornness.  It requires a
certain strength of character to constantly resist conforming; it requires
true strength, however, to SELECTIVELY given one's own will.  One must
constantly consider whether or continued conformity is good or bad.  On my
more confident day, I like to believe that I am at least attempting this.
Rich, howeever, speaks of it in deprecating terms, as the pickpocket might
of his victims.  For my part, I am quite happy to play Jefferson or Madison
to Rich's Tom Paine or Samuel Adams.

Charley Wingate