Aliis Non Licet, Tibi Si Licet?

On Independence, Peer Pressure and Self-Delusion

Since early childhood we are taught to abhor peer pressure. Our individualistic society worships the idea that our own internal moral compass and good sense will guide us without the need to see where everyone else is going, and how they feel about our course. It is an important message, working to reduce the rates of underage smoking, drinking and teen pregnancy. Nonetheless, this message has its ancillary costs; people are not able to prevent their subconscious need for self-validation from interfering with their ability to critically examine their own wishes, wants and positions.

All too often, our opinions, goals and feelings are shaped by forces that we would not consciously want setting policy. One person, while a Democrat, may support lowering the tobacco tax because she smokes, and gun rights because she likes to shoot. Another person, ostensibly aspiring to becoming an intellectual, rationalizes her refusal to actual engage in intellectual activity by telling herself that she is at a sweet spot, feeling that people more cerebral than her are engaging in pointless activity, and people less so are simply ignorant. Self-interest is not an immoral criterion to use in determining one's political views, but it is a tragedy when the lack of critical comment leaves a person unaware that their self-interest is clouding a judgment they perceive to be unbiased and selfless. Similarly one need not change oneself for the sake of an arbitrary label; however it is unfortunate if someone does aspire to a certain state of enlightenment and deceives herself as to what that entails.
EDIT: The two examples above are figments of my imagination, and certainly are not allusions to any persons, real or fictional.

Of course this issue transcends these two hypothetical examples. Any moral compass is susceptible to having one's subconscious toy with its headings. Osama bin Laden no doubt feels that he is morally justified in his actions. We being citizens of the United State would beg to differ, and in fact say that he had no reason and no right to do what he did. How can this state exist? Both sides are having their moral compass influenced by their policy agenda, and the plight of those around them. 9/11 blinds us to a possibly valid grievance that was used as a rationale for an invalid act. That grievance blinded the people of al-Qaeda to the fact that their actions were not justified, no matter that the provocation. Now we call him evil, he calls us evil, and this process continues.

The only check to this corruption of our conscious choices, opinions, goals and morals is to have critical discourse with peers. Only when someone disagrees with one, and thus forces one to defend oneself or at least one's point of view, are the reasons for that point of view held up to the light and any such influences made clear. These subconscious imperatives make themselves known in the form of unsupported assumptions or blind preferences. (Comments like "I just like this better, I have no reason") While preferences regarding one's attire are harmless and thus reasonable to leave in hands of blind preference, the same is not true for one's moral and ethical code.

Herein the tragedy of the anti-peer pressure campaign shows itself. In a society that does not accept that one's peers have the right to check someone with a wandering moral compass, or a wavering grasp on reality, how do we prevent people from suffering thus? In a society that worships mass culture and hates intellectual discourse, how can our "marketplace of ideas" ever be anything more than a cacophony of self-serving demands?