rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>>Rich, I don't see how you can say the reason people conform is due to >>>societal pressures and the like. Clearly, that is *a* reason, but there >>>seem to be others. Almost all existing groups profess a set of values.[LAURA] >> And I can add another very important reason. Humans and our >>immediate ancestors have been socially oriented animals for millions >>of years, living in "packs", "troups", or "tribes" as a rule. We thus >>have all the instincts and emotional desires of a social animal. We >>have emotional "needs" for reassurance, affirmation and so forth. We >>tend to view our own identity from a group perspective, we "know who >>we are" by what group we belong to. [FRIESEN] > Good point. Someone (C.G. Jung?) has even suggested that members of > some tribal societies are *literally* not unique individuals in the same sense > that members of our present society are. In a small tribe, individuals can be > identified with their social function ("job") so closely that even *they* > think of themselves as "Pot-maker" more than "Ug the pot maker". [KENN BARRY] These have in fact been one in the same. Actually this is the reason why we see people with names like Baker, Cooper, Smith, etc. Because IN THE PAST people were identified by the role they performed within the social structure. But... >>> I think there is an intrinsic desire to conform. This is a psychological >>> issue, not a philosophic one. [ADAMS] >>Intrinsic? Or rooted in that societal pressure and indoctrination? [ROSEN] > 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. 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. >>> In terms of morals, I would give much greater importance to independence >>> and/or freedom than to conformity. I would assign a zero or negative >>> value to conformity, however. >>Hear, hear! > This is an obvious typo. That should read, I would not assign a zero or > negative value to conformity. Too bad. Actually I wouldn't assign it a zero or negative value either. I'd give it an imaginary value. >>I think we can distinguish between conventions adhered to for things like >>safety reasons (like driving regulations) and conforming to the exclusion of >>self-expression solely for the purpose of conforming. > I don't think the distinction is all that clear cut. I do think, in > practice, in most cases where conformity is an issue, even a mild desire > for self-expression is of greater importance. I also think self-expression > should be encouraged. But as I said, there are cases covering the whole > spectrum. For an example of an intermediate case, consider public nudity. > This is against the law, but lets leave that aside for the moment. Let's not (and say we did). It is against the law precisely because of the notion that (and this seeps over into another discussion) societies have the "right" to legislate morality beyond the scope of non-interference. In other words, to impose morality, to proclaim that things are wrong, not just because they harm people, but because other people simply don't like them. This still strikes me as a dangerous and sick notion that we have (unfortunately) come to live with and accept. > 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?" > In my mind, that overrides any casual desire I might have to do it (not > a frequent occurance, by the way). It would not override, say, a desire > to make some sort of political point I thought was important. (Not that > I can think of any such points -- this is all hypothetical.) > There are two questions here, which are frequently confused. One is, > what actions are moral or immoral in a given situation? The other is, > what actions should be legal or illegal in a given situation? And the third is "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?" 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. > 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? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/25/85)
>>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
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (09/26/85)
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
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
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
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/01/85)
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