Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1747@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 16:02:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1747
Posted: Sat Sep 21 16:02:42 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:41:47 EDT
References: <1622@pyuxd.UUCP> <1472@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1647@pyuxd.UUCP> <97@l5.uucp> <734@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 23

> 	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]

This sounds like a good excuse for encouraging conformity, but surely
not a very good reason for doing so.  Sounds like a rationalization to me.
Because we need "reassurance and affirmation", we "should" be like
other people in order to get those things.  Why do you ignore the fact that
people learn the process of accepting, reassuring, and affirming people
"like" them, when they could just as easily learn to accept people on an
individual basis?  All you are saying is that the current status quo is
that "being like other people" is a positive social survival trait because
people have learned to value likeness in other people rather than individuality.
-- 
"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