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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: THe Moral Value of Conformity
Message-ID: <1786@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:52:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1786
Posted: Wed Sep 25 12:52:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:58:16 EDT
References: <677@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2725 net.religion:7788

>>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