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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1785@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:50:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1785
Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:50:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:57:27 EDT
References: <1152@ames.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 107
Keywords: response to both Kenn Barry and Frank Adams
Xref: watmath net.religion:7787 net.philosophy:2724

>>>Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to
>>>societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there
>>>seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values.[LAURA]

>>	And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our
>>immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions
>>of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus
>>have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We
>>have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We
>>tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who
>>we are" by what group we belong to. [FRIESEN]

> 	Good point. Someone (C.G. Jung?) has even suggested that members of
> some tribal societies are *literally* not unique individuals in the same sense
> that members of our present society are. In a small tribe, individuals can be
> identified with their social function ("job") so closely that even *they*
> think of themselves as "Pot-maker" more than "Ug the pot maker". [KENN BARRY]

These have in fact been one in the same.  Actually this is the reason why we
see people with names like Baker, Cooper, Smith, etc.  Because IN THE PAST
people were identified by the role they performed within the social structure.

But...

>>> I think there is an intrinsic desire to conform.  This is a psychological
>>> issue, not a philosophic one. [ADAMS]

>>Intrinsic?  Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination? [ROSEN]

> Yes, intrinsic.  There are societal pressures and indoctinations, but I
> think there is also an intrinsic desire.  Man evolved as a social animal,
> and conformity has positive survival value (for your genes, which are shared
> with family and tribe) in that context.  This doesn't prove anything, but
> I think it is indicative.

You're right in that it doesn't prove anything.  It smacks of "because things
have always been this way, they should continue to be this way".  If someone
walked in and said this about apartheid, or race hatred in general, or war,
or the original version of readnews, they'd be either laughed out of the room
or debunked.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You acknowledge
that approval and conformity are valuable "survival traits".  You forget to
ask why societies have placed so much emphasis on conformity in their social
structure so as to have MADE conformity a survival traits.

>>> In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence
>>> and/or freedom than to conformity.  I would assign a zero or negative
>>> value to conformity, however.

>>Hear, hear!

> This is an obvious typo.  That should read, I would not assign a zero or
> negative value to conformity.

Too bad.  Actually I wouldn't assign it a zero or negative value either.
I'd give it an imaginary value.

>>I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like
>>safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of
>>self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming.

> I don't think the distinction is all that clear cut.  I do think, in
> practice, in most cases where conformity is an issue, even a mild desire
> for self-expression is of greater importance.  I also think self-expression
> should be encouraged.  But as I said, there are cases covering the whole
> spectrum.  For an example of an intermediate case, consider public nudity. 
> This is against the law, but lets leave that aside for the moment.

Let's not (and say we did).  It is against the law precisely because of the
notion that (and this seeps over into another discussion) societies have the
"right" to legislate morality beyond the scope of non-interference.  In other
words, to impose morality, to proclaim that things are wrong, not just because
they harm people, but because other people simply don't like them.  This
still strikes me as a dangerous and sick notion that we have (unfortunately)
come to live with and accept.

> Appearing nude in public is likely to seriously upset a significant number
> of people.

The question is "Why?" and "Why do they thus have the right to legislate that
to the rest of us?"

> In my mind, that overrides any casual desire I might have to do it (not
> a frequent occurance, by the way).  It would not override, say, a desire
> to make some sort of political point I thought was important.  (Not that
> I can think of any such points -- this is all hypothetical.)
> There are two questions here, which are frequently confused.  One is,
> what actions are moral or immoral in a given situation?  The other is,
> what actions should be legal or illegal in a given situation?

And the third is "Why is there a conflict between a minimal objective
necessary non-interference morality and the legality/illegality of actions,
in a country that is not supposed to be based on some religious moral code?"
Accepting this as an axiom (the right of "society" to legislate morality
beyond non-interference and public safety issues) leads to the conclusion
of society as "more important" (which is what some people want) and
(indirectly) to conformity as a viable goal in a moral code.

> I would agree that non-conformity should not be illegal except where serious
> safety issues are involved.  (Thus I think public nudity should be
> legal.)  That does not mean that conformity is of no value.

Why *doesn't* it mean that, after what you've just said?
-- 
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
 to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
 being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com