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: <1647@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 23:19:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1647
Posted: Thu Sep  5 23:19:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 04:22:13 EDT
References: <1622@pyuxd.UUCP> <1472@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 155

>>>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.

Why do some people value "joining the Marines"?  Or joining a cult?  Or
overemphasize the importance of belonging?  It is a prime example of (perhaps
nonintentional) societal brainwashing and indoctrination.  "It is important
for you to belong.  It is important for you to be like others.  Conforming is
a good thing that will make you acceptable to others.  Self-discipline can
only be attained through enforced conformity.  You cannot do this yourself."
This devaluation of the self is a self-perpetuating societal force that we
must all reckon with.  Despite Charles' pompous claims, these things ARE
not in our individual self-interest.  They are in the interests of others who
might prefer to "minimize thinking", to judge you as a uniform clone-like
member of a group rather than as an individual.  And the propagation of
such ideals strikes me as disgusting.

>>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.

And as I have stated above, the only reasons why individuals might value
conformity for themselves are the bogus ones I describe that people are
indoctrinated with, which are pure unadulterated garbage.

> 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.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that fascists encourage to perpetuate
their ideals.  "It's easier to conform."  It's easier to do what you feel
you need and want, Charles, as long as societal pressure isn't present.  Is
such pressure an absolute?  Or does it come about as a result of thinking like
yours?

>>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.] 

If all you have to say is that my "accusations" are "usual" or "stupid",
I think that speaks for itself.  I am merely trying to correlate a system
of beliefs that you have:  Conformity is a positive thing; proselytizing
is OK no matter who you choose as victims (I'll go back and document this
if you insist); moral notions that you don't like (like there's nothing wrong
with homosexuality) are wrong because you say so (remember your problems
with the questionnaire?).  These are all examples of morality for your
convenience alone.  Minimal morality offers the most "convenience" to the
most people.  This is simply a contrast in ideals.  Your desire to make it
seem like a flame is, frankly, typical of your tactics of argument in the past.

> 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.

Above, I explained why conformity is as much a choice as blind obedience is
a "choice".  What precisely is an "objectively-derived prejudices"?  Isn't
that a contradiction.  Remember that when I "proselytize", I do so in a public
forum designed for exchange of opinion.  The proselytizing Wingate saw nothing
wrong with was "Christians" seducing and misleading children with books of
great Jewish prophets, finishing with Jesus as the "greatest of them all".
I think that says it all.

> 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.

Oh.  I asked a question about what could possibly correlate all those beliefs.
This is how you answer it.  That says something, too.

> THere seems to be an American obsession with non-conformism.

On the contrary, there would seem to be an American obsession with conformism.
All the talk of the great American individualists is mostly garbage.  The
ones who label themselves as "great individualists" are so often borne out
of a fixed mold.  What is valued in American society is how well you fit in.
"Individualist" role models spring up, but how do Americans express their
subsequent "individuality"?  By being just like them!  Why?  Because of the
same sort of indoctrination about the value of conformity that Wingate would
claim is a "free choice" that might at times be in one's self-interest.

> 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.

Pickpocket?  I have given the reasons why deprecating terms are appropriate.
You make giving in to the pressure of others for no good reason seem like a
virtue.  And that is what I find so despicable about your philosophy.

> For my part, I am quite happy to play Jefferson or Madison to Rich's Tom
> Paine or Samuel Adams.

Charles, do you hear that noise from across the Potomac?  In Virginia?
That's Jefferson spinning in his grave.  If you honestly think your ideals
in any way, shape, or form represent those of Thomas Jefferson, an
individualist and great thinker of the highest caliber, you've got another
thing coming.
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr