In defense of sheep

"Think for yourself. Don't just follow the crowd. Don't give in to peer pressure." It is all good advice. Some of the time.

Consider religions. Alongside their differences, they are all opposed to such things as deserting your children, drinking your wages away, engaging in extramarital affairs, and being unkind to your family members. Most members of most congregations do not do those things, most of the time. A person who is tempted to stray would do well to follow the crowd.

Some people would do well to belong to a crowd so they can follow it. The loners who commit campus shootings come to mind. Despite their isolation at one level, we can consider them members of an implicit crowd: society at large. They would do better to follow the wisdom of the crowd.

These cases may seem to miss the point a little because we doubt the philanderer or shooter is thinking they are performing a moral act. Suppose we consider the advice narrowed down to "When deciding whether something is morally right, don't just follow the crowd." Is this good advice? Some of the time.

Consider some nonconformists who made the news: The founders of Heaven's Gate, and the founder of Jonestown (Jim Jones). Both groups ended with mass suicides. (You can focus on the followers, who we wish had not followed the crowds they had joined, but here we focus on the leaders, who started their groups by not following a crowd.) William Miller convinced followers that the world was to end on a certain day in 1844, and while the consequences were less dire than suicide, it does not on balance seem to have been a good thing. We celebrate radical nonconformists, notable examples being Jesus, Buddha, or Martin Luther. But consider that for all we know for every one of them there have been three others who led people astray.

For those who believe abortion is murder, whether to kill doctors who perform abortions might not be a simple choice. The world would be better if all followed the overwhelming view of the anti-abortion movement that this is not a good choice, instead of a few following their consciences to a different conclusion.

Sometimes the problem is not knowing what is right and what is wrong, but how important it is. It is easy for a group to get bogged down and miss its primary objectives if members who are intent on following their consciences insist on objecting to using paper plates and plastic silverware, using a conventional product when a fair trade one is available, or debating whether the term "people of color" or "non-whites" is more appropriate.

Should a group sell all its stock in a company that does bad things, or should it keep the stock and try to change the policies through shareholder resolutions? You can express your views in discussion, but once the group has decided, maybe it is better to go along rather than stand on principle and refuse to let the question subside.

Suppose you belong to a high school group, and some members have a habit of littering. Should you take a strong stand and risk expulsion from the group? It isn't obvious. Suppose group members use ethnic slurs talking amongst themselves? You certainly do not have to participate, and there is a strong case for speaking up, but is a high-stakes confrontation called for? Working within to change opinions has merit, and the person's own need to belong has to be considered. We don't want a situation where all high school students of conscience have to be loners, because they find something morally questionable about the actions of all of their peers.

So what it comes down to, really, is that you should follow the crowd when they are right and not when they are wrong -- and when it is important. And it might be more often than not that the wisdom of the group is better than your own solitary judgments.