The Morality of Conforming to Common Social Expectations

[Jonathan13]

***Mod's Note***

This has been split from another thread. Click the quote link-back arrow to visit the originating thread. -Dante

But Objectivist morality is intended as a code to guide the individual towards living well. This means that "immoral" in Objectivism is a much more expansive term than it is in common speech. In the context of Objectivism, saying that a certain choice is a "moral question" is synonymous with saying that the choice has some potential effect, positive or negative, on the well-being of the actor.

What if an action doesn't actually have real negative effects, but certain Objectivists only falsely assert that there are or must eventually be negative effects? Is the action still immoral? If a man gracelessly gloms onto lots of free stuff from a company who couldn't care less if he takes the stuff, what is the real negative effect on him? (by "real," I mean not any imagined psychological damage or other predicted unmeasurable future harm that Objectivists insist will happen, despite the fact that they can't objectively demonstrate that it will).

If I show up disheveled for a job interview, most people would see this as a stupid thing to do, but not an issue of morality. However, in the context of Objectivism, it is indeed a breach of morality (excluding extenuating circumstances, assuming the job would have been an objective value to me, etc etc), because that choice negatively impacts my life.

It would depend on the job being offered, and the individuals involved. Showing up disheveled to certain interviews can be beneficial. It can separate the wheat from the chaff. It can send a message, such as "I require that you judge my work, not my appearance," or "I'm a rebel, base your hiring decisions on that information," etc. If one has the talents and skills to back up such an attitude, then showing up disheveled could have positive effects, such as communicating the expectation of creative freedom, among other things.

So, it would seem that by your theory, we wouldn't be able to tell if an action was moral or not until after we experienced the consequences of our choices. Kind of like, "Oops, I rebelled against my country's collectivist government, a government whose policies were having a somewhat negative impact on my life, but I ended up getting shot by police while rebelling, which will have a hugely negative impact on my life, so I guess the choice to rebel turned out to be immoral."

And, by your reasoning, actively advocating Objectivism could be a breach of Objectivist morality, since most people are not Objectivists, and they usually look unfavorably on anyone advocating it. I've seen people get much more upset about Objectivist ideas than they do about someone showing up disheveled to events where they're expected to be well-groomed. Therefore advocating Objectivism will negatively impact your life. Which makes it immoral by your criteria.

In general, if I do something that I know will have an overall negative effect on my life, I'm engaging in immorality, whether it is something huge like holding up a liquor store, or something small like procrastinating on a school assignment until the night before.

What about the morality then of, say, designing a building by following one's own vision rather than conforming to what is expected? What if the overwhelming majority of people think that an architect's work is ugly (which is the architectural equivalent of being personally disheveled)? Trying to emulate Howard Roark's attitude would seem not be a good idea according to the theory that you're proposing, because, more often than not, it would have a very negative impact on a person's life. Therefore exercising independent vision in any culture which discourages it is immoral?

Now all of this is not to viciously condemn those who make small deviations from a course oriented towards their well-being; I certainly make plenty of those myself. On the contrary, my intention is to stress that if you define morality as following the proper course towards your own well-being, as Objectivism does, even small deviations are, technically speaking, immoral.

If anything, you're convincing me that, by your theory of morality based on "negative impact" versus "well-being," taking full advantage of offers of free stuff, and of lax product returns policies, is not only moral but highly virtuous. Doing so is much better for a person's well-being than not doing so. One gets more stuff, more value in life, and no one has been harmed.

This is certainly not to say that many Objectivists don't use the word in a condemning fashion, or that it hasn't been used in that way in this very thread. However, that is not always the intended interpretation of the word. In fact, if someone else points out to me that one of my actions has been immoral (i.e. detrimental to my well-being) in a respectful and helpful way, the proper response is for me to thank that person, the same way I would thank someone for pointing out a mistake I made while doing a math problem.

Okay. Then let me say that certain Objectivists are "immoral" in how they promote Objectivism, and what they claim to be Objectivism. They're doing more harm than good. I look forward to receiving lots of what you say is the the proper response, which is for them to now thank me for having made them aware of their "immorality."

J

Edited September 12, 2010 by Dante
Split from another thread

[Dante]

What if an action doesn't actually have real negative effects, but certain Objectivists only falsely assert that there are or must eventually be negative effects? Is the action still immoral?

Of course not.

So, it would seem that by your theory, we wouldn't be able to tell if an action was moral or not until after we experienced the consequences of our choices...

Of course not. Being personally faced with the negative consequences of one's actions certainly can be a powerful indicator, but nowhere here have I said that one must rely on personal experiences only when making decisions. I don't need to personally experience drug addiction to recognize the negative effects it would have on my life. I can easily discover those effects by learning from others. I don't understand where you got this "personal experience only" angle from my post. One of the biggest strengths of man that arises out of his conceptual nature is his ability to project the future consequences of his actions and thereby pursue his own interest long-term.

I've seen people get much more upset about Objectivist ideas than they do about someone showing up disheveled to events where they're expected to be well-groomed. Therefore advocating Objectivism will negatively impact your life. Which makes it immoral by your criteria.

"Not making other people upset" is not an objective standard of human flourishing.

What about the morality then of, say, designing a building by following one's own vision rather than conforming to what is expected? What if the overwhelming majority of people think that an architect's work is ugly (which is the architectural equivalent of being personally disheveled)? Trying to emulate Howard Roark's attitude would seem not be a good idea according to the theory that you're proposing, because, more often than not, it would have a very negative impact on a person's life. Therefore exercising independent vision in any culture which discourages it is immoral?

Where on earth do you get this idea that by "well-being" I mean something like having an easy life where you get along with the people around you? I would argue that Howard Roark was advancing his own well-being immensely by following his own vision, however little this was understood by the society around him.

If anything, you're convincing me that, by your theory of morality based on "negative impact" versus "well-being," taking full advantage of offers of free stuff, and of lax product returns policies, is not only moral but highly virtuous. Doing so is much better for a person's well-being than not doing so. One gets more stuff, more value in life, and no one has been harmed.

If I truly could advance my long-term well-being by taking free stuff in any scenario where it was possible, it would indeed be highly virtuous. However, I would argue that that is not the case.

Okay. Then let me say that certain Objectivists are "immoral" in how they promote Objectivism, and what they claim to be Objectivism. They're doing more harm than good. I look forward to receiving lots of what you say is the the proper response, which is for them to now thank me for having made them aware of their "immorality."

I agree with many of the statements you've made in this thread about the issues of hyperjudgmentalism, poor use of language, etc as general problems common to many Objectivists. I believe very strongly that if someone thinks that promoting their ideas is important, they should take advantage of the wealth of information that exists on effective communication and related topics. Many Objectivists do indeed do unnecessary harm with the way they promote the philosophy.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Dante

[Jonathan13]

Of course not. Being personally faced with the negative consequences of one's actions certainly can be a powerful indicator, but nowhere here have I said that one must rely on personal experiences only when making decisions. I don't need to personally experience drug addiction to recognize the negative effects it would have on my life. I can easily discover those effects by learning from others. I don't understand where you got this "personal experience only" angle from my post.

In your previous post you had given me the impression that you believed if one makes a choice which has a negative effect on his life, then the choice is immoral. Since one can't know the outcome of his choices in advance, and in fact his choices can result in negative outcomes despite his best intentions, it would seem to follow that one can't know the moral status of his choices until he experiences the actual effects in reality.

See, you didn't say that a person's intentions of making a choice which he hoped or expected would end up having positive effects were what made his choice moral, but that the effects of his choice are what is relevant. When you said "effects" did you actually mean the "intended effects"?

"Not making other people upset" is not an objective standard of human flourishing.

Okay, then I apparently misunderstood the point of your "disheveled" job interview scenario. I took you to be saying that showing up disheveled would be insulting or upsetting to the person interviewing you, which would result in your not getting the job, which would be a negative effec, which would make the choice to show up disheveled "immoral." If that's not what you meant, then on what basis would showing up disheveled be immoral? I mean, if one thinks that it doesn't matter what others think, I'd think that it would be virtuous to show up however one felt the most comfortable, whether it was in comfy jogging shorts and a well-worn old Celtics sweatshirt, or even completely nude. So, if avoiding making other people upset is not one's concern, how would showing up disheveled be "immoral"?

Where on earth do you get this idea that by "well-being" I mean something like having an easy life where you get along with the people around you? I would argue that Howard Roark was advancing his own well-being immensely by following his own vision, however little this was understood by the society around him.

Maybe we'd have a better chance of communicating if you were to explain to me what you mean when you use certain terms, such as "well-being," "positive effects," "negative effects," and "negatively impacts my life." I was assuming that you were talking about actual, objectively demonstrable effects, like gaining or losing money, getting hired or fired, risking one's savings on a business venture and then succeeding and turning profits or failing and losing everything. But now it sounds as if you mean something else, like what one intends to have happen, regardless of what eventually actually does happen.

If I truly could advance my long-term well-being by taking free stuff in any scenario where it was possible, it would indeed be highly virtuous.

However, I would argue that that is not the case.

I'm all ears. I'd be happy to consider any proof that you could provide that people who take advantage of freebies do not advance their well-being because of doing so. I think I even recall having read a Reader's Digest article on people who saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and were therefore able to do whatever they wanted in life, due to practically making a profession out of taking advantage of freebies and various other offers and policies.

J

[Dante]

I took you to be saying that showing up disheveled would be insulting or upsetting to the person interviewing you, which would result in your not getting the job, which would be a negative effec, which would make the choice to show up disheveled "immoral." If that's not what you meant, then on what basis would showing up disheveled be immoral? I mean, if one thinks that it doesn't matter what others think, I'd think that it would be virtuous to show up however one felt the most comfortable, whether it was in comfy jogging shorts and a well-worn old Celtics sweatshirt, or even completely nude. So, if avoiding making other people upset is not one's concern, how would showing up disheveled be "immoral"?

That is indeed what I was saying with that particular example, but the generalization of this argument to a principle like "always go with the flow" is not what I intended and not what I would support. In certain situations one most definitely should care what other people think. In the job scenario, for example, it is perfectly rational for an employer to expect a certain amount of professionalism from prospective employees. A job interview is not very much time to evaluate a person, and showing up prepared and well-groomed is one non-verbal way to communicate to a prospective employer that you would this job seriously, that you understand the context of the American workplace, etc. The importance of complying with others' expectations of you entirely hinges on whether or not those expectations are themselves rational.

In Howard Roark's case, for instance, the society in which he was immersed objected to his buildings largely on the basis of irrational attachments to the traditions of architecture. This is certainly a case where yielding to the will of the majority would have had profoundly negative effects on Roark's life: he would be betraying his passion, he would lose his pride and his integrity, etc. He may have gained more money and popularity, but it would have been at the cost of deeper, more important values. This was the basis for his statement that turning down the proposed Manhattan Bank contract because they wanted to alter his designs was "the most selfish thing you've ever seen a man do." He clearly understood what values were most vital to his own happiness, and he refused to sacrifice them to the expediency of the moment. In my use of well-being, I mean this sort of informed, rational, long-term perspective on the achievement of values and personal happiness.

Thus, the fact that pursuing one's well-being meant conforming to the employer's expectations was a nonessential characteristic of the particular example that I gave. The broader point is that if I take an action which I can reasonably predict will have an overall negative impact on my long-term well-being, I'm being immoral.

In your previous post you had given me the impression that you believed if one makes a choice which has a negative effect on his life, then the choice is immoral. Since one can't know the outcome of his choices in advance, and in fact his choices can result in negative outcomes despite his best intentions, it would seem to follow that one can't know the moral status of his choices until he experiences the actual effects in reality.

See, you didn't say that a person's intentions of making a choice which he hoped or expected would end up having positive effects were what made his choice moral, but that the effects of his choice are what is relevant. When you said "effects" did you actually mean the "intended effects"?

....

Maybe we'd have a better chance of communicating if you were to explain to me what you mean when you use certain terms, such as "well-being," "positive effects," "negative effects," and "negatively impacts my life." I was assuming that you were talking about actual, objectively demonstrable effects, like gaining or losing money, getting hired or fired, risking one's savings on a business venture and then succeeding and turning profits or failing and losing everything. But now it sounds as if you mean something else, like what one intends to have happen, regardless of what eventually actually does happen.

Well I certainly don't mean that one's intentions alone, however rational or irrational, determine the morality of an action. There are objectively knowable and predictable results to the actions we take, and these results flow from the basic nature of the entities involved in the choice. One should adhere to this context of knowledge when making decisions, because intentions alone are not enough to advance one's life. Because of the existence of this context of knowledge, I also deny that we can't evaluate any action until it's been taken and all is said and done. Our knowledge allows us to project the likely consequences of the potential actions we could take, and it is within this context of knowledge that subsequent decisions can be evaluated.

Now, one conclusion of this viewpoint is certainly the fact that moral decisions won't always, in every case, turn out to increase well-being. I may have taken all reasonable precautions when preparing my food, but it could still turn out to be poisoned or otherwise hazardous to my health. Perfection of outcomes is not the standard of morality I'm advocating. The space between that mindset and mine is filled by the concept of errors of knowledge.

Thus, when I said (for instance): "[showing up disheveled] is indeed a breach of morality (...etc etc), because that choice negatively impacts my life..."

it would have been more accurate to say instead: "[showing up disheveled] is indeed a breach of morality (...etc etc), because a reasonable assessment of the possible outcomes of that choice would tell me that it's very likely to have an overall negative impact on my life."

I hope this clarifies my position.

If you or anyone else are interested, this methodology of tracing out the likely consequences of certain types of actions is employed skillfully by Tara Smith in several different publications where she defends the Objectivist view on various virtues. If you have access to her book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, she defends the seven Objectivist virtues by tracing out the consequences on one's life and well-being of either following or not following the virtues as policies of action. If you don't have access to that, but do have access to academic databases, her paper "The Metaphysical Case for Honesty" from The Journal of Value Inquiry employs this method to defend honesty as a selfish virtue (primarily in section 3).

Edited September 11, 2010 by Dante

[Jonathan13]

In certain situations one most definitely should care what other people think. In the job scenario, for example, it is perfectly rational for an employer to expect a certain amount of professionalism from prospective employees.

Then it's just as rational that the citizens of a city would expect a certain amount of professionalism from the building designs of their city. If it's rational and virtuous to capitulate to society's expectations regarding something as personal as one's manner of dress and appearance, then it's just as rational and virtuous to capitulate to society's expectations about something as public as how the buildings of their cities are "dressed" and what appearance they present.

Additionally, showing up "inappropriately" attired and groomed to a job interview potentially offends only one person -- the interviewer -- and only for the brief amount of time that one is in his presence, where architectural designs which the public deem to be inappropriate offend countless people for decades or perhaps centuries. So, I'd think that by any objective standard, acquiescing to others' opinions regarding personal choices of appearance would be judged as significantly more immoral than acquiescing to their judgments regarding very public matters of appearance like architecture.

A job interview is not very much time to evaluate a person, and showing up prepared and well-groomed is one non-verbal way to communicate to a prospective employer that you would this job seriously...

As I mentioned earlier, the opposite could also be true: Showing up in unconventional garb, and with a three-day beard and messy hair could be a way of non-verbally communicating the message, "I'm so serious about my profession that I don't have time to care about superficial things that have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of my duties. I'm applying for the position of financial controller, not the position of fashion model."

...that you understand the context of the American workplace, etc.

Again, the same is true of architecture. A building's design is a non-verbal way of communicating that its owners understand the context of the American workplace (or neighborhood, or place of worship, etc.), and that they take their customers and other fellow citizens seriously.

The importance of complying with others' expectations of you entirely hinges on whether or not those expectations are themselves rational.

In Howard Roark's case, for instance, the society in which he was immersed objected to his buildings largely on the basis of irrational attachments to the traditions of architecture.

What makes their "attachments" to the traditions of architecture "irrational"?

Here's some of what Roark had to say about traditional architectural practices:

"The famous fluting on the famous columns – what are they for? To hide the joints in wood – when columns were made of wood, only these aren't, they're marble. The triglyphs, what are they? Wood. Wooden beams, the way they had to be laid when people began to build wooden shacks. Your Greeks took marble and they made copies of their wooden structures out of it, because others had done it that way. Then your masters of the Renaissance came along and made copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Now here we are, making copies in steel and concrete of copies in plaster of copies in marble of copies in wood. Why?...Rules?"

First of all, it's not true that flutings came about to hide "joints" in wood. Flutings were the result of builders recognizing that the aesthetic effects of the lines of rough-cut wooden columns were more rhythmically proportional and pleasing than smooth columns. They felt that that was true regardless of which substance the columns were made.

Secondly, the Greeks didn't make marble "copies" of wooden structures. They created new designs which incorporated many elements and principles of established architecture, usually because the principles were sound regardless of the medium. Contrary to what Roark says later about no two substances being alike, and that what can be done with one must never be done with another, most materials do have very similar structural characteristics, and require similar treatment. In the cases where builders unnecessarily incorporated previous design elements with new materials, such as in the case of stone triglyphs, it wasn't due to following "rules" as Roark claims, but instead was done as a tribute to the profession of architecture and the architects of the past. It was a sign of celebration and respect for the history of mankind's technological development.

So the claim that people's preferences for traditional styles are "largely on the basis of irrational attachments" doesn't reflect reality (granted, it may reflect the mindset of some fictional characters that Rand created, but if those characters are meant to represent how the majority of people think in reality, then they're not accurate).

Now, here's Roark's method from above rewritten and applied to men's contemporary business attire:

The famous neckties on the famous dress shirts – what are they for? To hide the primitive openings and fasteners – buttons made of plastic which are copies of buttons made of wood which were copies of buttons made of seashells. The style of collars? They serve no purpose other than to hold the tie, and, together, the collar and tie are an unnecessary imitation of ancient drawstrings and the ruffles they caused, they're traditions re-created in modern materials which don't require them. Lapels? They're left over from a time when men worked outdoors as much as indoors, and were originally a means of adjusting one's attire to suit the weather. They're useless today as business attire, unless one's business involves sailing ancient ships or commanding troops encamped in ancient tents.

Roark's style of criticizing the traditions of architecture is more applicable to those who conform to the traditions of men's fashions.

Thus, the fact that pursuing one's well-being meant conforming to the employer's expectations was a nonessential characteristic of the particular example that I gave. The broader point is that if I take an action which I can reasonably predict will have an overall negative impact on my long-term well-being, I'm being immoral.

Okay, but earlier you said, "If I truly could advance my long-term well-being by taking free stuff in any scenario where it was possible, it would indeed be highly virtuous. However, I would argue that that is not the case."

How is one impeded from long-term well-being by taking advantage of freebies? If Howard Roark, for example, had stopped in at the local bar every evening with Stephen Mallory to take advantage of free food, while not be required by the bar's owner to purchase anything, how would it possibly have negatively affected his long-term well-being?

J

Edited September 11, 2010 by Jonathan13

[ScarlettCatherwood]

As I mentioned earlier, the opposite could also be true: Showing up in unconventional garb, and with a three-day beard and messy hair could be a way of non-verbally communicating the message, "I'm so serious about my profession that I don't have time to care about superficial things that have absolutely nothing to do with the performance of my duties. I'm applying for the position of financial controller, not the position of fashion model."

This would be true if we lived in a rational society where everyone realized that the clothes you wear, though they might make a difference in other situations, are irrelevant to your job performance. However, we don't live in that society. The reality is that we are constantly being judged on our appearances.

Acknowledging that fact, if you decide that being messy and disheveled is of a higher value to you than the job, if you think you would be making a sacrifice by dressing a little nicer, than by all means don't. Although I think that's highly doubtful.

The same goes if you think working for an employer that doesn't judge on appearances is of a higher value than working for one who does.

However, in both cases I'd assume that the job you're applying for would not be very valuable to you. I, for one, would not be willing to risk it if it was a well paying job that I wasn't likely to get anywhere else.

This is all said, of coure, assuming you're looking for a job, not persuing a career. If the job you're applying for is your career than I can see your point. If appearing disheveled is that important to you, anyway.

[Eiuol]

So the claim that people's preferences for traditional styles are "largely on the basis of irrational attachments" doesn't reflect reality (granted, it may reflect the mindset of some fictional characters that Rand created, but if those characters are meant to represent how the majority of people think in reality, then they're not accurate).

The point is that all the other architects in The Fountainhead adopted certain standards *because* they were tradition absent of any consideration of why certain features were ever used. The essential question is why someone does something, not merely that they do something. In this way Objectivism isn't consequentialism. Yes, consequences are absolutely a consideration in moral decision making and any decision made should further your life. However, sometimes you have to take into consideration the full context of your knowledge without important information.

The question of the OP doesn't simply end after saying "because it's cheaper." What purpose does a return policy at a particular store serve? Usually it's to allow a customer to get money back because they had honestly poorly evaluated the product purchased. It's not usually to get money back because you finished reading a book and were happy with it and want to trade it for something else. It is a little questionable to me whether or not I did anything improper in the context of this thread since the store gets an item back in the same condition while I get a different book in it's place. The solution to my uncertainty is to simply ask the store owner if they'd care. I'd only be asking the store owner because a *trade* is involved.

Some "why"s about the whole disheveled job interview issue:

Why go disheveled? Do you want to somehow prove to others that you're a rebel?

Why do you want the job?

Why would a workplace judge you appearance, and are such judgments rational?

Why would you want a job at place that cares about the appearance of its workers?

Why go cleanly? Do you want to somehow prove that you're great at conforming to get ahead?

That's offtopic, so I hope you don't actually respond to that in THIS thread.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Eiuol

[SapereAude]

Then it's just as rational that the citizens of a city would expect a certain amount of professionalism from the building designs of their city. If it's rational and virtuous to capitulate to society's expectations regarding something as personal as one's manner of dress and appearance, then it's just as rational and virtuous to capitulate to society's expectations about something as public as how the buildings of their cities are "dressed" and what appearance they present.

J

Here's where you're mixing things up.

The person who might give you a job owns the job (lets not quibble about HR depts, middle management etc). Morally it is theirs to give or not give based on any criteria they care to set.

The citizens of a city do not own private buildings being developed. It is not morally correct for them to have a say in someone else's private building (short of certain externalities that involve forms of force)

[Jonathan13]

The person who might give you a job owns the job (lets not quibble about HR depts, middle management etc). Morally it is theirs to give or not give based on any criteria they care to set.

Yes, a business owner has the right to put any conditions he wants on a job position which he's offering. If he feels like it, he can expect that his prospective employees should wear lime green tuxedos, pink ballet slippers, and maple syrup in their hair. The question is whether or not his doing so is rational, and therefore whether failing to conform to his expectations while applying for a job with his company is "immoral" as Dante claims.

As you say, the employer owns the job. He doesn't, however, own the employee, or the prospective employee.

Dante and I have both commented on how one's attire and grooming can be a form of non-verbal communication. The main thing that going to a job interview dressed or groomed differently than expected (or differently than one presumes is probably expected) communicates is that the person applying for the job believes that the employer's expectations on attire and grooming are negotiable. So, Dante's opinions on the immorality of such etiquette violations are actually opinions on the immorality of negotiation.

The purpose of going to a job interview is to entice the employer with your qualifications, and if he's interested in what he sees, to bargain with him about what he's willing to give to you in return for your services. If bringing up the issue of attire and grooming, including non-verbally, is "immoral," then so is bringing up any other issue over which you disagree with his expectations. It would therefore also be "immoral" to show up for a job interview if you intend on demanding a greater compensation package than what the employer is expecting applicants to accept, or to insist on being given more authority or creative freedom than he expects to allow, etc. If failing to conform to one of his expectations is "immoral," then failing to conform to any of them is "immoral."

Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised to hear Objectivists, of all people, discussing an issue of personal choice and announcing that it is "immoral" not to submit to others' opinions and traditions.

The citizens of a city do not own private buildings being developed. It is not morally correct for them to have a say in someone else's private building (short of certain externalities that involve forms of force).

Using the same reasoning, those who apply for a job own the private clothing that they wear, and it is not morally correct for others to have a say in someone else's private clothing. If an employer owns the job he's offering, then the customers of his business own the jobs that they're offering to him. If it is "immoral" for a person to dress for a job interview in a manner that is upsetting to the person who will be paying for his services, then it is "immoral" for a business owner to construct a building whose design is upsetting to the people who will be paying for his services.

J

[Eiuol]

The purpose of going to a job interview is to entice the employer with your qualifications, and if he's interested in what he sees, to bargain with him about what he's willing to give to you in return for your services. If bringing up the issue of attire and grooming, including non-verbally, is "immoral," then so is bringing up any other issue over which you disagree with his expectations. It would therefore also be "immoral" to show up for a job interview if you intend on demanding a greater compensation package than what the employer is expecting applicants to accept, or to insist on being given more authority or creative freedom than he expects to allow, etc. If failing to conform to one of his expectations is "immoral," then failing to conform to any of them is "immoral."

I think you entirely miss the point. The question of morality here is supposing a goal of landing a job and that the job will benefit your life. It would be irrational to take actions that will make you less likely to get the job. However, if the standards of how you should look are ridiculous or against other important values of yours, why would you even want a job there? In that case, it probably would be immoral to apply at all. I think it is fair to say Dante was talking about a typical corporate job. Maybe the bigger question is if the corporate world expects everyone to be a conformist zombie and look just like everyone else due to some pretty much pointless or arbitrary standards of tradition. In any case, how you look may matter for various jobs. If you're applying to be a car mechanic, looking a certain way matters little. If you're applying for a job at some fashion design company, the way you look matters a lot because after all, it's a job about making people look a certain way, and a certain sort of style is being sought after.

IF you want a job, some standards are reasonable to adopt. SOMETIMES, certain standards may reflect something negative about the company, so wanting the job may even be irrational and thus immoral. You have to look at the context. Really the principle here is: "supposing a goal of yours is rational and the requirements of that goal do not require a sacrifice of values, it would be immoral to do anything that takes you further away from that goal."

[Jonathan13]

I think you entirely miss the point. The question of morality here is supposing a goal of landing a job and that the job will benefit your life. It would be irrational to take actions that will make you less likely to get the job.

Demanding a compensation package which you think represents your actual worth, rather than the lesser amount that an employer is initially offering, will also "make you less likely to get the job." Therefore, by your criteria in the comment above, demanding that someone pay you more than what they're initially offering is "immoral."

However, if the standards of how you should look are ridiculous or against other important values of yours, why would you even want a job there?

You must have missed the part of my post above where I brought up the issue of negotiation. All prospective employers are exactly that -- prospective. The purpose of an interview is to discover whether or not you actually want the job after you hear the company's specific requirements and what they're willing to offer you in return, and if you want to make any counter-offers. The issues up for negotiation could include anything from compensation to the company's dress code. So the answer to your question, "why would you even want a job there?" is that I might think that the company is an almost perfect fit for me, but that some of their terms are unacceptable and need to be negotiated.

J

[Eiuol]

Demanding a compensation package which you think represents your actual worth, rather than the lesser amount that an employer is initially offering, will also "make you less likely to get the job." Therefore, by your criteria in the comment above, demanding that someone pay you more than what they're initially offering is "immoral."

Supposing wage is negotiable, how would demanding more necessarily make you less likely to get the job? I mean, by saying wage is negotiable, it is to be expected that you'd try to demand as high of a wage as possible. If negotiating a higher wage made me less likely to get the job after my interview and the negotiation was just a game to see what I'd do, well, I wouldn't want a job at a place where everyone is expected to accept automatically whatever is offered. It would be entirely irrational, though, to demand a wage that is completely unreasonable due to factors such as simplicity of the job you are applying for. I see you like to focus on the word "immoral" but the fact of the matter is that the irrational is the immoral.

So the answer to your question, "why would you even want a job there?" is that I might think that the company is an almost perfect fit for me, but that some of their terms are unacceptable and need to be negotiated.

Yeah. Still, there may be some things that are advisable to do to get a job, as in take a shower before you go out and at least comb your hair. Usually, not showering would reflect that you don't give a damn about your health and your level of self-esteem is questionable, meaning that an employer has less of a reason to hire you. So, usually it would be irrational to not take a shower before a job interview.

[JayR]

Now, here's Roark's method from above rewritten and applied to men's contemporary business attire:

The famous neckties on the famous dress shirts – what are they for? To hide the primitive openings and fasteners – buttons made of plastic which are copies of buttons made of wood which were copies of buttons made of seashells. The style of collars? They serve no purpose other than to hold the tie, and, together, the collar and tie are an unnecessary imitation of ancient drawstrings and the ruffles they caused, they're traditions re-created in modern materials which don't require them. Lapels? They're left over from a time when men worked outdoors as much as indoors, and were originally a means of adjusting one's attire to suit the weather. They're useless today as business attire, unless one's business involves sailing ancient ships or commanding troops encamped in ancient tents.

At the risk of interrupting the discussion, this made me laugh out loud.

j..