rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/29/85)
> 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