Universalism vs relativism

[Coggeh]

I would like to understand what the lefts position is on this, is therre universal morals? Or are they relative. Please try to keep replies basic my understanding of philisophical terms are basic at best. Apologies

[gypsylinda]

The obvious answer is that there's no general agreement on this question.

Sure, we all agree that each power structure grows out of the economic conditions of its time and so slavery, feudalism, capitalism and so on create systems of morality to suit their own power bases.

On the other hand, it's also true that poor on poor crime, oppressed on oppressed crime, is far more common than striking back against the enemy.

Is it moral to kill someone to steal their car so you can sell it for drugs?

Is it moral to steal a loaf of bread because you're starving?

IMO the two crimes are different and one is more morally defensible than the other.

Still, that's just my two pennysworth!

[Coggeh]

poke.... anyone :(

[Coggeh]

edit: sorry posted this in the wrong section just realised, could an admin or mod switch this to philosophy please or should i just start a new thread? im befuddled :blushing:

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would like to understand what the lefts position is on this, is therre universal morals? Or are they relative. Please try to keep replies basic my understanding of philisophical terms are basic at best. ApologiesI think most people would probably say that morals are a social construct and shaped by the needs of society and in this way they are relative and conditional.

In class societies, accepted morals are generally shaped by the needs of the ruling class of that society - namely the need to keep that ruling class's social order intact.

An obvious way that morals are informed by the needs of the ruling class is murder which is only acceptable on some level if done in war, by government/military officials, police, courts, and so on. In fact it is often celebrated and the ruling class tries to whip up support when Bin Laden is assassinated or when police shoot a "dangerous suspect". But if a soldier kills his officer in self-defense (i.e. don't force me to do this dangerous mission or don't force me to continue to fight this war that I don't agree with) or if people killed crooked police in self-defense, then it is considered immoral. Even at protests, if the police beat dozens and detain or arrest hundreds, it's a window broken by protesters that gets denounced in the press and by liberals even when they say they support the cause of the protesters.

[Coggeh]

Thank you for replying.:)

[MarxSchmarx]

On some level, my leftism derives from a deep skepticism about universal morality.

Absent a "natural law of value", each person has to decide for her/himself precisely what their code of ethics is going to be. After many years of thinking about it, I've come to the basic conclusion that only an egalitarian economic order could truly empower individuals to decide their own fates, to be in control of their own destiny, to realize their own moral values in their day to day lives.

I think Jimmie Higgins gets at something when he points out that morality is class based. Indeed, I think isn't problematic because it is "bourgeois morality" as opposed to proletarian morality, but rather because class based morality is basically opposed to individual based morality, which deprives people of their basic autonomy over what is moral and what is not for themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Interesting thoughts... and a way to synthesize (working) class and individual morality: if there was an egalitarian society, then morality could be more or less individual, if the working class came to power in society, since they do not need to oppress other people and convince them to act or believe certain things, then their morals would be to allow people to come up with their own moral codes as they wish...

Does that make sense? I think I just confused myself.

[Old Mole]

Morality has always existed, but not always in its moral form (please excuse me for the travesty). Just like most things concerning humanity morality is shaped by history. I think that the dominating morality in society is constructed by the ruling class according to its needs. But I also think that the "correct" ethics (from the standpoint of the oppressed) differ just as the needs for different technology, social relations etc., etc. differ depending on the mode of production. That doesnt mean that we have to resort to a totally relative standpoint, in any given historical situation there is always a correct answer. The trick is to find the universal in the relative and the relative in the universal. This is kinda confused, but I hope someone gets what I am trying to say.