Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity Message-ID: <703@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 09:28:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.703 Posted: Tue Oct 1 09:28:33 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 04:25:49 EDT References: <1152@ames.UUCP> <1785@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 119 Keywords: response to both Kenn Barry and Frank Adams Xref: linus net.religion:7451 net.philosophy:2498 Summary: In article <1785@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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. You seriously misinterpreted that sentence. That entire paragraph is directed only to the question, "is the desire to conform intrinsic". Thus "it doesn't prove anything" means "it doesn't prove anything about whether the desire to conform is intrinsic". You are trying to make me say, "it doesn't prove anything about whether conformity is good". It doesn't, but it isn't even trying to. >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. No, I think you have it backwards. Conformity IS inherently a survival trait for societies, especially primitive societies. To clarify up front: the following arguments are exclusively applicable to such societies. If you want to ask, "how does this relate to modern society?", wait a couple of paragraphs. So how does conformity aid survival in a society? Well, consider conformity of dress. If your tribe is all dressed the same way, and you are fighting another tribe, you know who to attack and who is on your side. This is extremely useful. More generally, conformity means following behavior patterns which have been shown by experience to be conducive to survival. Violating them *may* find a better way, but is *much* more likely to get you killed. As additional evidence, note that non-human societies all feature a high degree of conformity. Now, most of these reasons have little or no application to modern society. Combat has become relatively rare, fortunately, although the combatants do still wear uniforms. The latter reason is based primarily on ignorance; we have much more basic knowledge now. Also, modern societies are significantly less fragile; the death of one individual or a small group will not destroy one. These aspects are not entirely missing in modern society, but they have become trivial considerations. But the point is that conformity was a survival trait when the human race was evolving, and accordingly, there is an *intrinsic* desire to conform. If you think this desire is purely the result of indoctrination, you are deluding yourself. If you plan a society which does not take this desire into account (which can as easily mean suppressing it as encouraging it), that society will not work. Another point which follows from this discussion is that societies don't encourage conformity solely for the benefit of those in power. (Yes, this is a factor.) Another reason is that modern societies are evolved from more primitive societies, where encouraging conformity was strongly pro- survival. Again, this is *not* a reason why they should *continue* to encourage conformity, except for the (relatively trivial) current remnants of those reasons. Those remnants are not entirely trivial. If I open a factory using a new industrial process, there are risks to the people in the area. (No matter how carefully the process is tested, there are still some risks.) If there are not offsetting benefits, it is better to conform and use a tried and true approach. (Of course, there is normally one offsetting benefit, which is the hoped-for superiority of the new process.) The society has a right to insist that I take certain reasonable precautions, or even to forbid the project if it is judged too dangerous. >> 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?" No, the question is, how do you distinguish this upset from "harm"? > "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?" Because the morality underlying the legal system is a combination of maximizing the survival chances for the society, and acheiving the greatest good for the greatest number. Neither of these is a 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. This does not follow. For example, many people (I am not one of them) think that mind-altering drugs should be illegal *solely because of the harm they do to those who use them*. (Many people have the same opinion for different reasons, but I'm not talking about them.) There is no implication here that society is "more important". If you justify non-interference as, overall, maximizing the total good, you MUST admit that there are possible exceptions, cases where one *does* know that a person will be better off if you interfere. They may be rare, but it is possible. >> 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? Because what should be illegal and what are immoral actions are not the same thing, as I just said. There are cases where one *should* conform, although it should not be illegal to not conform. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com