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: Losing sight of our goals
Message-ID: <1803@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:12:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1803
Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:12:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:12:04 EDT
References: <432@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 64

>      Let's start with the first. [CONFORMITY] This usually has implications
> toward some kind of standard. This, however, does not include a definition
> of what that standard may be. I think that it is safe to say that most
> standards are based upon some type of rational.
>      The implications are that conformity depends upon your own particular
> trust in that standard. For an intelligent decision to conform, it is
> important that the reasons supporting a standard are understood, and there
> exists agreement. This means that conformity can not be considered an
> objective, but a result.
>      Although the meaning of the word *CAN* be altered so that conformity
> can be considered an objective, this perspective is outside the human
> experience. This means care must be taken when speaking objectively about
> conformity, because it is a process that is alien to our normal perceptions.
> [WILLIAMS]

That is the whole point here.  Making conformity a goal (which some people
seem to be saying may be a "good" thing) is nothing more than losing sight
of what your goals are.

An example:  a population at large fears an upsurge in crime.  Thus they
elect "law and order" politicians who advocate some stringent application
of force (e.g., "secret police").  Eventually the goal behind the force is
no longer to prevent crime, but to perpetuate the exercise of the force. 
Questioning the utility of continuing the use of this force is itself
considered a crime.  The original goal has been swallowed up in the particular
methodology used to obtain that goal, to the point where the methodology has
become the sought-after goal rather than the original goal itself.

This is the case with conformity.  What is the goal of a moral code?  To
keep things "stable" so that people won't be harmed and so that society may
keep going.  In a morality where the needs of the people are paramount over
the emergent phenomenon called "society", the goal then becomes to provide
for all those needs as much as possible without allowing acts that harm other
people.  Maximal freedom with minimal interference.  Some might say:
"Well, one way to keep things stable and provide for everyone's needs is
to indoctrinate everyone to conform to certain standards and role models.
That way things will be so much easier to handle for everyone."  But does
this achieve the goal of maximizing individual people's lives?  Of course
not:  it defines sets of roles for them that may not accommodate them as
people, forcing them into molds into which they do not fit for the convenience
of others.  So why does conformity become a goal worth achieving?

Some may retort that "you are assuming, Rich, that the notion of people's
individuality and personal freedom is ipso facto a goal worth having when this
is only your assumption".  I think not.  If the goal of a morality does not
involve the needs of its individuals, then what does it involve?  Whom does it
serve?  I keep saying this, and it seems to silence those who say "no,
society's needs are more important", so I'll say it again.  If the needs of
"society" are more important than the needs of its members, then this would
mean that society would have the right to "say" that the presence of human
beings in the world is detrimental to the running of society, and thus it
would have the "right" to get rid of all us.  To be sure, we all get in the
way of the running of society from time to time.  By the above reasoning,
our lives are thus expendable in relation to "society".  For this reason (among
others), it seems clear to me that the needs of individuals outweigh the
so-called needs of society.  A society that has "needs" that run counter to
the needs of its people is a badly formed society, and the rules need
changing to make society accommodate its members, not the other way around.
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com