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: <1672@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 23:00:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1672
Posted: Wed Sep 11 23:00:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:28:28 EDT
References: <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> <1524@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 152

>>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. [ROSEN]

> 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. [WINGATE]

I'll go slow.  By being what others would like you to be rather than being what
you yourself would like to be (or being/doing what you need to be/do), you
are acting against your own self-interest.  It's that simple.  It is precisely
because I (and you) don't know what's best for everyone that individual
self-development is what I support instead the repugnant notion that conformity
is a worthwhile thing.  Conformity is a trade-off you choose to make or not
make, but it is certainly not in your interest, and advertising it as such
as deceptive.  (Which is of course what certain religions do.)

> 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?

The one I wrote above.  In this case, rather than childhood traumas (such as
those that might lead one to believe in religions, too), the inspiration for
the disgust is my appreciation for human beings as individuals instead of as
cogs that function only within the domain of a "society" and its "morality".
It is the fact that cultivating individuality (which happens of its own
accord in the absence of "cultivating conformity") broadens the scope of the
humn race, makes us (as individuals and as a species) more adaptable, more
knowledgeable, etc.  Indeed, it is quite proper to ask.  You have asked.  I
have answered.  Now what?

>>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.

That's why I went slow for you above.  I find what I went through above to be
painfully obvious.  Sorry.

>>>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.

We WERE talking about morality.  The morality you've been spouting supports
the notion that conformity is an OK (if not a desireable) thing, and advocates
spreading that notion as part of the morality.  A careful reader might note
that I didn't "tar it as fascist".  To be sure, this sort of encouraging has
been in place since times long before fascism.  My point was (and is) that
this advocating of conformity and indoctrination towards it is a prime tool
used in fascism.  Have you ever read 1984?  (Not last year's calendar, the
book!)  Speaking of preaching, whose preaching encouraged them to conform
in the first place?  Isn't such preaching thus interfering in their lives?

>>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.

I'll let you, the readers, decide what was said by whom about what.

> 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.

On the contrary, I hope to teach them a lot about religion.  And how to judge
it for what it is themselves. 

>>>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.  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]

What I know about your current beliefs was uncovered by reading what you wrote.
My "attacks", for that reason, can never have an "objective" basis, since your
beliefs (as shown in your writing) seem to change (do they have free will? :-)
at whim (i.e., whenever someone finds fault with them, you claim to have said
something else---e.g., souls).  Much like your spelling of "[CcKkQq]hristian".
And this is, of course, irrelevant to the topic, which for some reason Charles
is straying away from.

>>>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.

It is precisely because I (and you) don't that I support encouraging
individuality as part of a morality.  By that, all I mean is NOT encouraging
conformity.  Is it natural for people to feel the need to conform, or is
that introduced specifically by a moral system that encourages it?  And isn't
that what we're talking about here?
-- 
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr