Ethical?

[Lord Daedra]

If there is no true morality, than is there a true meaning behind ethics?

[milkmiku]

what ever society assigns.

[Lord Daedra]

what ever society assigns.

But....it does have a "good" purpose right? I'm sure no one here views ethics in the same way they view morality? (disdain)

[Rafiq]

But....it does have a "good" purpose right? I'm sure no one here views ethics in the same way they view morality? (disdain)

This concept of "good" itself pre supposes ethical absolutism. The answer is no.

[Lord Daedra]

This concept of "good" itself pre supposes ethical absolutism. The answer is no.


Thanks for the info. I am now cool with medical experiments on death row inmates (am i serious? The world may never know...!)

[Jason]

If people think something is evil, then they will (or should) put a stop to it. But the definition of what's evil varies among different groups.

[Ostrinski]

I would say that the concepts of good and evil are both relative to a given context and broader societal conditions as well as subjective to the individual's perception of them based on their interractions with broader society.

Now does this mean that good and evil don't exist and are meaningless language? I would say not because there are people, organizations, even overall social developments that on a personal level I suppose I would characterize as evil, Hitler and the Nazis being the standard example. However, I also acknowledge that I have no means of possibly being able to objectively measure it in the material sense.

The only way there could be a moral universal for humans is by decree from an entity that verifiably exists outside of and above the physical realm that we exist in, such as a deity or a god. Since methodically as a materialist that understands that the only realm in existence is the physical one, I reject such a notion. And simply as a rational human being that demands sufficient evidence and demonstration to justify any assertion, I see no reason to accept such a notion.

This topic always inevitably leads to the question of the principle and the value. Of course, I believe in such things as "socialist values," "socialist principles," even "socialist ideals." Among them would include uncompromising opposition to racism, gender roles (patriarchy), heterosexism, nationalism, and all other forms of bigotry and chauvinism in all their manifestations all on anti-capitalist grounds. But I also acknowledge that I have no capacity to authoritatively declare these universal laws of morality.

I see capitalism as a wretchedly immoral system. But I never make my attacks on capitalism on moral grounds. Why? Because they are impotent, uninsightful, and unsupportable. For these reasons appeals to morality are specifically and always the territory of demagogues and opportunists who would rather exploit one's emotional standings than expose them to objective criticism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

From a Marxist point of view, there are currently no real "universal" ethics. There are some basic things where different viewpoints converge on an ethical question, but beyond that someone's "ethical" viewpoint is colored by their position in society (along with a lot of smaller variable factors of circumstance).

So the "ethics" of when it is acceptable to kill someone varry depending on someone's situation in society. For our rulers and those who share their viewpoint, it is "ethical" to kill people in order to ensure US dominance, because in their view US dominance "keeps order" in the world and ensures control - and they see this as ethical. For our rulers the revolutionary French "terror" was unethical even though it was less bloody than Monarchal terror because in countries where merchants and capitalists are on top, the idea of an inversion of social order is "unethical" as it represents a threat to their ruling orders. But alternately, putting down an insurrection or strike through force is "ethical" (even though it is just as much "terror" as revolutionary violence against the rich) because again, it represents a threat to "order". There can be a very general agreement that it is "ethical" to kill in self-defense - but what does that mean for a society where there are two antagonistic classes? If there is a slave revolt, it would be "ethical" in regards for self-defense for the slaves to protect themselves by killing the people trying to prevent their uprising, but for the plantation owners trying to prevent the uprising, they are also "ethically" fighting for their self-defense. So there are no universal "ethics" possible until people are in the same social position where personal gain doesn't come at a loss for others.

If marxists and anarchists and revolutionary workers of all kinds have an "ethics", it's a revolutionary and class-based ethics. I tend not to like terms like "morals" and "ethics" because I think most of the time political reasoning should be able to be explained on a political level: this is the best action to take for such and such reasons. So revolutionary reasoning goes something like: who benifits for this and in what way, who is harmed by this, what impact does this have on our class power, consiousness, organization, ability to live and fight for a better position towards liberation.

So IMO, induvidual acts of terror for example are "unethical" not because of the violence and death potentially involved (which is regretable, but when placed in a larger context, some political targert is, themselves, probably a politician responcible for deaths by the justice system or military or a CEO who causes misary in the lives of thousands - which is how induvidualist terrorists justify their actions as "ethical"), but because most of the time it has no benifit towards workers organizing themselves and learning how to work together for their own aims - and often it can have adverse results for workers if the state responds with a crackdown on all poltical groups. It is "unethical" in the sense that as a strategy, it doesn't help people win liberation for themselves.

[NGNM85]

If there is no true morality, than is there a true meaning behind ethics?

It's not exactly clear what you are driving at. If by; 'true morality', you mean; 'absolute morality', I'd certainly have to agree. However; I don't expect you're going to find a lot of deontologists in the Radical Left. Ethics is a discipline of philosophy dedicated to evaluating what coduct can be concluded as good, or bad, and how to make such evaluations. This is, obviously, indispensible. Such judgments inform nearly every action we take. The very heart of Socialism is a set of moral principles, which, I would argue, are pretty much unassailible. Some Radicals, incorrectly identify themselves as; 'anti-moralists, in fact; several of them have already chimed in. Every sensible person should ignore such statements; these people are confused.

[NGNM85]

If people think something is evil, then they will (or should) put a stop to it. But the definition of what's evil varies among different groups.

'Evil' is a romantic, melodramatic word for; 'bad', or; 'wrong. I generally avoid using it, and would advise others to do the same, as a general rule.
It just doesn't add much to the conversation, quite the contrary, in most cases.

There are many different competing ethical positions, however; this does not mean that these different ethical frameworks are qualitatively equivalent. In most cases; they aren't. This also does not mean that there are no right answers; even if we may not be able to prove them, or even conceive of them.