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!linus!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: <1524@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 22:44:37 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1524 Posted: Mon Sep 9 22:44:37 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 08:23:17 EDT References: <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 130 In article <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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 levels 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. MY pompous ideas? *I* am the one, after all, who is suggesting that I don't know what is best for everyone. Might I ask, Rich, what objective PROOF you have fr all these statements? As best I can acertain, the root of your objections is some sort of moral repugnance; I happen to think that this disgust is a valuable emotion, but it is hardly objective. Indeed, it is quite proper to ask what may have inspired the disgust in the first place, since it is often traceable to childhood traumas and the like. Someone with a lesser aversion to conformity could very well disagree, and claim instead the for some people, joining the Marines would be the best thing to do. What objective argument could you bring against that? >> 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. How about OBJECTIVE argument? Saying that the reasons are bogus five hundred times is not a counter-argument. >> 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? Ah yes: no argument, so we'll just tar it as 'fascist'. And what's this silly talk about absolutes? I never said that people absolutely should or should not conform. What I DID say was that some people see their interests lying in conformity rather than individuality. WHy should they listen to your preaching, rather than to do what they want to do? After all, they aren't hurting anyone else. >> 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. Rich in fact explained nothing about conformity; he merely stated its immorality, without the slightest shred of justification. As for objectively-derived prejudices, well, obviously it is a contradiction-- but of course, Rich's prejudices are just that, and not objectively derived at all. And I can only hope to see Mr. Rosen dilligently refraining from teaching his children about religion. >> 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. Well, Rich, since you seem to know so much about how I have come to my current beliefs (not to mention such vast ignorance of what they are), I thought that a little fact my improve the objective basis of your attacks. [that was sarcasm, for those who didn't notice] >> 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 give up >> one's own will. One must constantly consider whether or continued >> conformity is good or bad. On my more confident days, 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. How pompous of you to claim that you know what is and is not a good reason for every other person in the world. Charley