Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: The Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <250@umich.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 12:04:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.250
Posted: Thu Sep 26 12:04:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 11:39:35 EDT
References: <677@mmintl.UUCP> <1786@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 52
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2465 net.religion:7400
Summary: Helping people at your own expense sometimes makes sense

In article <1786@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> 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).  

I'm using Laura Creighton's definition of conformity:  conformity = doing
something because other people do it.  By Laura's definition, using a word 
the way other people use it is an example of conformity (one uses the word 
that way *because* other people do and therefore they will understand you).

Some examples of conformity are such that the conforming person could gain
some "selfish advantage" by not conforming, but if everyone conforms all
are better off than if nobody does.  Suppose it's customary (in a certain
culture) to give "the car on the left" the right-of-way in certain traffic
situations, even though there's no law that says who has the right of way.  
Suppose, furthermore, that everyone finds himself in the position of "the
car on the left" about as often as he is in the other position.  Also, 
everyone would prefer the outcome <getting the right of way when in the
position of the car on the left, and yielding it otherwise> over the
outcome <getting the right of way approximately half of the times one is
in such a situation, regardless of which position one is in>:  because,
for example, it saves the car on the left lots of time and hassle when
it gets the right of way, but hardly any for the other car when *it* gets 
the right of way.

If everyone conforms to the custom, all get the outcome they prefer; if
nobody conforms, all get an outcome they dislike.  But the best of all,
from the point of view of selfish advantage, is for everyone else to
conform while *you* take the right of way whenever possible (all the time
when you're "the car on the left", and perhaps half the time when you're
not (given that the other person will "compete" for the right of way and
"win" about half the time)).

Now for the moral question:  conform or no?  I say yes, and I think my
position is implied by the "golden rule".  I would like to point out that
in terms of mutuality of benefit, this case is exactly like (most) cases
of non-interference:  if everyone refrains from (e.g.) theft, everyone
gains, but the maximum "selfish advantage" would be to do it when one
could "get away with it".

A lot depends on accepting (mine and) Laura's definition of "conformity".
If "conformity" is defined, as one netter defined it, as "acting on others'
values instead of your own" (not an exact quote), then, I agree, conformity
is never right; never the/a sensible thing to do.

--Paul V Torek 						torek@umich


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com