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.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <704@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 09:38:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.704
Posted: Tue Oct  1 09:38:37 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 04:26:10 EDT
References: <677@mmintl.UUCP> <1786@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 20
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2499 net.religion:7452

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

Your definition of politeness is incorrect.  Politeness is social
customs which are used to show respect for other human beings.  Courtesy
is as you defined it.

If you were to visit me wearing a coat, it would be impolite for me
not to offer to take your coat and hang it up.  If the social custom
were to throw your coat on the floor when visiting, there would be
nothing (im)polite about not offering to take it.  If the social customs
say that a (public) action is impolite, it *is* impolite.

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