Why have morals?

[arilando]

Why should an individual have any kind of morals? Why should't they just do whatever they want to do, disregarding any kind of morals/ethics?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Why should an individual have any kind of morals? Why should't they just do whatever they want to do, disregarding any kind of morals/ethics?

That's a good question, but I like morals and ethics the way they are now =)
So I hope that some of them never changes!

[Ostrinski]

Morals are useful and practicle. Morality has historically changed in accordance with changing material conditions and societal development, because the way we socially interact changes in accordance with the former. It therefore makes sense that the ways in which we find morality useful change in accordance with the changes in the ways we interact.

Also, this should go in philosophy.

[roy]

In a way, I think people do actually do 'whatever they want to do'. I choose the option that will give me the biggest reward, be it tangible or emotional. We realise there's no long-term reward for running around and acting on impulse.

[Veovis]

I like interacting with other people. I wouldn't want to do anything to piss them off too badly.

Hence, morality.

[Regicollis]

Morality is necessary in order to have a society. When everyone (or at least the vast majority) care about the consequences their actions have to other people the freedoms, possibilities and welfare of all increases.

[Questionable]

Morality is a double-edged blade. Everything depends upon its context. Most of us would probably say we oppose mass killings if asked, but in the situation of a proletariat uprising, we may come to endorse the mass killings of a resistant bourgeois.

I believe it was "Their Morals and Ours" where Trotsky advocated revolutionaries forging a new morality, wherein the only "moral" thing was anything that furthered the cause of socialism. In my view, there is no act that is immoral unless it opposes, directly or indirectly, the interests of the proletariat.

[Caj]

I believe it was "Their Morals and Ours" where Trotsky advocated revolutionaries forging a new morality, wherein the only "moral" thing was anything that furthered the cause of socialism. In my view, there is no act that is immoral unless it opposes, directly or indirectly, the interests of the proletariat.

Engels also wrote of such a "proletarian morality."

[Yefim Zverev]

Socialism and communism without strict morals can not exist... Because not to exploit something is a moral.

Even choosing to fight for socialism is a moral phenomena, where many people don't want to do so and abuse the capitalist system.

Moral is everywhere, a leftist who ignores moral is ignorant.

I'm also in favor that we discuss on this matter deeply because it is forgotten and it s crucial. Moral matters the most.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It depends on what you mean by morals. Should people have a personal code? Sure. Should there be a universal morality? That's a different question. The kind of morality that's considered universal right now is bourgeois morality which is largely a combination of capitalist ethics and morals developed during the industrial revolution to keep the growing numbers of workers "well behaved".

I'm not that well read in philosophy or ethics but it seems to me that universal morality tends to be an expression of the kinds of behaviors needed to maintain a particular form of society. Some morals began as practical rules or dictates from rulers that became generalized and turned into social custom over time. This isn't to say that all morals are a ruling class trick, some are just practical behaviors for getting through life - but for dealing with a particular kind of social environment and system. So feudal morality stressed things like being a good guest and helping travelers with lodging. This was practicle for a society where people lived more spread out and in smaller populations (and there were no motels :D).

Some are more generally useful and can transcend social relations to be just as useful in capitalism as in feudal or classical societies. So "don't kill or be needlessly cruel to others" is just a generally useful way for masses to behave in almost any kind of society. It's hard to grow crops or run a business if people are running around beating the shit out of eachother all the time. But this moral is not actually universally applied and so it's OK for cops or the military to kill, just not people who aren't given a license for violence by the ruling class.

Other examples of morality are more specific. There were a lot of behaviors which were moral in feudal systems that aren't considered moral or even normal today whereas immoral acts in feudal times are neutral today. In fact, changing money which is a virtue today was not only immoral but a sin and prohibited in most circumstances in feudal countries.

So morals are related to class societies and class relations. In order to achieve something approaching a universal morality, we'd have to get rid of class divisions: then there wouldn't be one set of acceptable behaviors for some and different standards for others. But still the term morals leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I think that a worker's society could get along with principles, not a set of morals. The point of behaviors would not be "good" or "bad" in a moral sense but "helpful" or "harmful" in a material way. This would separate the practical side of having social guidelines while separating it from the moral judgement of others.

Personally I think I'm a totally principled person who is also completely amoral.

[Caj]

Socialism and communism without strict morals can not exist... Because not to exploit something is a moral.

Even choosing to fight for socialism is a moral phenomena, where many people don't want to do so and abuse the capitalist system.

Moral is everywhere, a leftist who ignores moral is ignorant.

I'm also in favor that we discuss on this matter deeply because it is forgotten and it s crucial. Moral matters the most.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree. I don't think the problem is so much with morals but with the sacrifice of materialist understanding in favor of morals.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialism and communism without strict morals can not exist... Because not to exploit something is a moral.Capitalists don't exploit people because they are immoral, they exploit people because that's how this system works.


Even choosing to fight for socialism is a moral phenomena, where many people don't want to do so and abuse the capitalist system.Again, the fight for worker's power isn't a moral fight in the sense of wanting to "do good," fighting for socialism is a way to end class struggle and the harmful effects of the capitalist system.

For us, determining what is "good" or "bad", should be based on what furthers the cause of working class self-emancipation and eventually working class rule and the abolition of classes. It shouldn't be based on some concept of an absolute or inherent quality of a behavior.

[Caj]

Capitalists don't exploit people because they are immoral, they exploit people because that's how this system works.

I think what (s)he means is that to oppose exploitation is a moral position.


Again, the fight for worker's power isn't a moral fight in the sense of wanting to "do good," fighting for socialism is a way to end class struggle and the harmful effects of the capitalist system.

Well, why should we want to end class struggle and the "harmful" effects of capitalism? Who's to decide whether or not the effects are harmful?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, why should we want to end class struggle and the "harmful" effects of capitalism? Who's to decide whether or not the effects are harmful?They aren't harmful effects... according to capitalists. They are harmful if you are a worker.

For workers it's a matter of liberation, not morality.

[arilando]

For clarification what i mean is, if someone wants to do something that is traditionally considered immoral, for example rape someone, murder someone, etc and are able to get away with, should't they just do it? Why not?

[gorillafuck]

For clarification what i mean is, if someone wants to do something that is traditionally considered immoral, for example rape someone, murder someone, etc and are able to get away with, should't they just do it? Why not?
are you going to accept moral reasoning? because there's no scientific reason.

[arilando]

are you going to accept moral reasoning? because there's no scientific reason.
Well i'm interested in any kind of argument.

[gorillafuck]

well then, because those things harm others to a point where society says that it is too much harm, and is therefore considered immoral. it's pretty simple.

[Yefim Zverev]

Capitalists don't exploit people because they are immoral, they exploit people because that's how this system works.

Again, the fight for worker's power isn't a moral fight in the sense of wanting to "do good," fighting for socialism is a way to end class struggle and the harmful effects of the capitalist system.

For us, determining what is "good" or "bad", should be based on what furthers the cause of working class self-emancipation and eventually working class rule and the abolition of classes. It shouldn't be based on some concept of an absolute or inherent quality of a behavior.

Thank you. These are progressive critics on my comments. I liked them.

The way I also see how important moral is during struggle of itself. During how people organize in order to defeat the system. The organization itself needs an inner moral.

Even the simpliest communes can not survive without certain moral.

Look at the op's update about what he is asking actually:
For clarification what i mean is, if someone wants to do something that is traditionally considered immoral, for example rape someone, murder someone, etc and are able to get away with, should't they just do it? Why not?

Certainly in a society where rape or drugs exists for example with such a society you can not achieve much.

Most of the crimes are of course products of the wrong system. For example robbing a bank is actually not morally negative even in some cases murders would be justified when there is no other way out and you need to fight for your food. But if you say "rape" that is different. A society where rape and murder freely are allowed can not survive.

I think a society with such a mentality can not even achieve a revolution.

Revolution needs good organization and discipline and inner moral. Look at the system you are against. How it is sophisticated organizing. They can analyze your 6th 7th future moves like in chess table. The system has an inner mechanics. The way I see moral is that it is an inner mechanic... If your inner mechanics is not strong you can not move any stone in the system.

For example in a simple micro commune a person needs to take some responsibilities to produce for the common good of the commune. The perfect freedom where everyone can do anything they wish is not a concept of the commune. It is a trickery concept of liberalism. Allow all religions to exist for instance... This can not work... It will immediately corrupt the commune or the struggle... This is why there should be certain rules... certain concrete ideology... certain discipline and certain moral in order to be able to organize.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Should people have a personal code? Sure. Should there be a universal morality? That's a different question. The kind of morality that's considered universal right now is bourgeois morality which is largely a combination of capitalist ethics and morals developed during the industrial revolution to keep the growing numbers of workers "well behaved".

I'm not that well read in philosophy or ethics but it seems to me that universal morality tends to be an expression of the kinds of behaviors needed to maintain a particular form of society. Some morals began as practical rules or dictates from rulers that became generalized and turned into social custom over time. This isn't to say that all morals are a ruling class trick, some are just practical behaviors for getting through life - but for dealing with a particular kind of social environment and system. So feudal morality stressed things like being a good guest and helping travelers with lodging. This was practicle for a society where people lived more spread out and in smaller populations (and there were no motels :D). This. As Durant put it: "Moral codes adjust themselves to environmental conditions." Base and superstructure, prevailing ideology reflect the ideology of the ruling class and all that...


For clarification what i mean is, if someone wants to do something that is traditionally considered immoral, for example rape someone, murder someone, etc and are able to get away with, should't they just do it? Why not? Reciprocity, i.e. the golden rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule).

BTW, if someone wants to "rape or murder someone," there's a very good chance they have some sort of problem that needs to be treated/handled/dealt with.

[Marvin the Marxian]

They aren't harmful effects... according to capitalists. They are harmful if you are a worker.

For workers it's a matter of liberation, not morality.

Agree comrade. Liberation of the working class will help them materially. Thus it is in the material interest of the working class to liberate itself. Anything which helps accomplish liberation is therefore also materially helpful to the working class. The question becomes what helps accomplish liberation.

[Marvin the Marxian]

For clarification what i mean is, if someone wants to do something that is traditionally considered immoral, for example rape someone, murder someone, etc and are able to get away with, should't they just do it? Why not?

I don't think anyone can know for sure that she will get away with something like rape or murder.

[Yazman]

Why should an individual have any kind of morals? Why should't they just do whatever they want to do, disregarding any kind of morals/ethics?

Because you can't really be part of society if you just do whatever you want without any regard for what is considered to be acceptable behaviour in any given culture.