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.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity Message-ID: <1786@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:52:42 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1786 Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:52:42 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:58:16 EDT References: <677@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 41 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2725 net.religion:7788 >>Is there a mutuality >>here that is to everyone's benefit, the way refraining from interfering in >>other people's lives does? Or is the only real benefit to that ephemeral >>entity called society as a whole? > Look at what you said. Is there a mutuality here that is to everyone's > benefit? ... and ... it offers ME some positive benefit if YOU conform. > The benefit is not to "society as a whole", but to those who benefit > from your conformity. Is this a net benefit? It depends on the cases. So what motivation do I have for helping others and hurting myself at my own expense? Non-interference minimal morality type thinking offers such a motivation when it comes to common sense restraint against harming people (and being impolite to people as well: see below). What good does it do to gain the esteem of the rest of the world and lose one's self? > Even if you insist on a mutual benefit, it still depends on the cases. It > is quite possible for my conformity to hurt me and help you, but that your > conformity is more help to me than my conformity hurts, and vice versa. > This is true, for example, of politeness. (Not that impoliteness is never > justified.) But clearly this isn't true. Without simple courtesy and politeness, you are treating people in a way YOU would not be likely to cotton to if *you* were treated that way. That old (very rationally based) "Golden Rule". This differs significantly from wearing red shirts. There *is* an objective difference between: 1) courtesy/politeness (mutual respect between human beings) AND 2) requiring/expecting/encouraging people to adhere to arbitrary conventions in the NAME of such "politeness" or in the name of "preserving the social order" > Now if you are talking about conformity of opinion, I have to agree. The > only place I expect conformity of opinion on a subject is in an organization > whose purpose is to press that opinion. Agreed. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com