Morality and the left

[Hegemonicretribution]

The question I pose is simple, should the radical left ever participate in moral discussions, should it ever offer a moral argument?

The follow up is simple enough; if not, how do we approach issues that are currently debated/fought primarily on a moral basis? If so, then how do we balance a desire to influence a 'moral' agenda whilst moving away from morality as an outdated bourgeois concept, and towards a materialist outlook?

A little background; this is not about moral arguments as an end goal. Morality should be shelved and replaced. This is about dalliances with moral arguments in order to secure immediate gains on certain issues.

This followed from a recent thread on abortion, where I felt an interesting theoretical discussion was emerging; one not entirely in keeping with the original line of the thread.

I believe the positions which emerged may be partially summarised as follows:

1) Moral arguments have no place in the left, for in participating we undermine our own basis for argument. Moral arguments are only of relevance to fence sitters, and others with weak ties to the left. The priority should be on tackling issues, but exclusively through approaches that reject morality, moral language, and moral debates.

Or

2) Morality needs to be replaced, but whilst most issues and debates are framed and dressed in moral language, we need to tackle this head on, and sometimes address them in their own terms. Winning a moral argument can sometimes lead to real gains where a simple rejection of morality would cause one's approach to be written off. Many people come to the left through a process of moral indignation, leading to a change in morality, followed by a rejection of morality in favour of materialism.

Yes I accept that I have only partially represented the above positions, but I hope that the partial representation is enough to avoid offence, and stimulate debate.

[Ace High]

You argue a good point, but shouldn't some objective morals exist? Really, the only ones that should exist are objections to violent crime, right? I mean all of us on this forum are opposed to rape and murder. So while you're right, there should never be moral judgments for choices regarding sex and whatnot, but we can't entirely eliminate them right? After all, revolutionary morals should help secure the revolution. I think it's more like we are replacing these outdated oppressive so-called "morals" with actual morals.

[Zutroy]

Morality is not an outdated bourgeois concept---at least it was never presented as such. Marx's critique of morality sought to distinguish bourgeois morality from that which could really be considered moral.

Marx's argument against capital is, and always has been, a moral argument. If morality was irrelevant, then what difference would it make how much the ruling class screwed everyone, right? What's wrong with appropriating surplus labor elsewhere if we're disregarding morality, right?

People of all ideological stripes have the problem of automatically associating the word "morality" with the idiotic things religion says, and then deciding the whole concept can be disregarded without realizing its scope.

[Hivemind]

shouldn't some objective morals exist?

You're one guy, out of seven billion, on a planet that's the size of a speck of dust floating around in the vast emptiness of a universe older and bigger than any one person can hardly comprehend. There's no objective anything when it comes to morals or ideas or thoughts. There's a difference between objective morality and socially accepted/sanctioned ideals/habits/norms which yield desirable, positive results instead of undesirable, negative results.

Ironically enough, saying that something like morality can be objective is highly moralistic :laugh:

[RedBen]

isn't morality something more individual? i think what a person means by morality is what is relevant to their value systems. my definition is to not harm others. i think people ought to be able to do almost anything as long as we do not hurt eachother or deprive eachother of freedom. i think far leftists can be some of the most "moral" people, considering far more variables into what we as individuals mean by moral. i know a lot of leftists don't eat meat because of consideration of the treatment of animals, not wanting to hurt anything, but that is just my opinion.

[Zutroy]

i think far leftists can be some of the most "moral" people.

That is exactly right. Ironically, in spite of all the right-wing spew on the subject, people with the keenest sense of what's right and wrong always seem to gravitate leftward.

[Nevsky]

Trying to picture morality (not "bourgeois morality" but the fundamental concept of morality itself) as an idealist notion, opposed to materialism or materialist method is a vulgarization of marxism in my opinion. Marxism dismantled the bourgeois myth that the "spirit" (or whatever you want to call it) determined the phenomena going on in the world. We on the other hand shouldn't make the error to reduce everything to materialism.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Marx's argument against capital is, and always has been, a moral argument. If morality was irrelevant, then what difference would it make how much the ruling class screwed everyone, right? What's wrong with appropriating surplus labor elsewhere if we're disregarding morality, right?

Except it isn't. Marx's point in Capital is that there is a conflict between capital's immediate interests and its results - that capital in the end can't bear the contradictions produced by itself. These are economical - and, consequently, political - arguments, not at all moral arguments. There's a reason Marx called Capital a critique of political economy, not "a presentation of my moral views."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is nothing wrong with using moral arguments to appeal to people's anger over particular injustices of the system but I don't think it is helpful to base one's analysis of why society is flawed on some moral judgement of the character of a person or group of people. If one just has a simplistic moral criticism they will miss the structural forces which make whatever moral problems arise to begin with.

Also people need to recognize that most in society on some level are operating with a morality which is socially conditioned by the economic elites (such as absolute respect of private property)

[Zutroy]

Except it isn't. Marx's point in Capital is that there is a conflict between capital's immediate interests and its results - that capital in the end can't bear the contradictions produced by itself. These are economical - and, consequently, political - arguments, not at all moral arguments. There's a reason Marx called Capital a critique of political economy, not "a presentation of my moral views."

Forgive me, I'll clarify. Marx's manifesto is a moral exhortation. You're correct about Capital. It is a purely objective dismemberment of capitalism. I misspoke in that first sentence.

However, Marx's exhortations for revolution most certainly have a clear moral component. He's not telling workers to overthrow capital because it's scientifically flawed. He's telling workers they're being shafted by capital and should be outraged---the implication being that the aforementioned shafting must be wrong.

[Ace High]

You're one guy, out of seven billion, on a planet that's the size of a speck of dust floating around in the vast emptiness of a universe older and bigger than any one person can hardly comprehend. There's no objective anything when it comes to morals or ideas or thoughts. There's a difference between objective morality and socially accepted/sanctioned ideals/habits/norms which yield desirable, positive results instead of undesirable, negative results.

Ironically enough, saying that something like morality can be objective is highly moralistic :laugh:

Oh no, you're right, except I am pretty sure rape and murder are objectively immoral, yeah? Unless an individual has antisocial personality disorder (no, that doesn't mean you are shy, I'm talking about sociopathy), they must see rape and murder as morally unjust.

[Zukunftsmusik]

However, Marx's exhortations for revolution most certainly have a clear moral component. He's not telling workers to overthrow capital because it's scientifically flawed. He's telling workers they're being shafted by capital and should be outraged---the implication being that the aforementioned shafting must be wrong.

But that's more, like, to excite people. He thought the working class has the possibility to overthrow the system because of these inner (economical) contradictions.

[Zutroy]

But that's more, like, to excite people. He thought the working class has the possibility to overthrow the system because of these inner (economical) contradictions.

And? How does that change the moral aspect of it? Are you saying the manifesto was partially disingenuous? Why should workers have cared about surplus labor unless they thought it was wrong for capitalists to appropriate it? Do you really think Marx was so clinical that he didn't really mind workers being shafted, and saw capitalism purely as economic ineffeciency?

You are correct that Capital is a neutral and objective analysis of what's wrong with capitalism. It doesn't follow that Marxism is neutral and objective, though, unless you assume Capital is Marxism. It is actually an economic justification for Marxism, which itself is partisan in favor of the working class. Furthermore, it's possible that you're reluctant to apply the term "moral" to Marxism because of its association with rightwingery, regardless of how applicable the term may be. The fact, though, is Marxism is centered on the notion of exploitation. It wouldn't make any sense to rail against exploitation unless one supposes that it's wrong---which further presupposes a system of rights and wrongs that one would have to accept as a given in order to subscribe to Marxism.

In other words, a certain morality. Not bourgeois morality, not "Christian" morality, but morality nonetheless.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Acehigh, Imade no point. I highlighted positions for the purpose of debate. If I appeared to argue then I failed. My actual views are made clearer on another thread.

Zutroy, I long to respond, but I am on my phone. All I will say is that by dividing things into camps of right or wrong you are implying such states exist. Regardless of a theistic component, the bourgeois have justified much in terms of right; a concept they (for the most part) control.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting morality as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Zutroy]

Zutroy, I long to respond, but I am on my phone. All I will say is that by dividing things into camps of right or wrong you are implying such states exist. Regardless of a theistic component, the bourgeois have justified much in terms of right; a concept they (for the most part) control.

Just to clarify, I was suggesting morality as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Implying that such states exist objectively? I think it implies that they exist subjectively in the mind of the person doing the dividing. My point is that they would have to, as opposed to the notion that Marxism discards them completely.

Bourgeois moralizers do not control the concept. They may misappropriate it heavily, but they don't control it. As opposed to surrendering the entire argument to the bourgeois and discarding the concept, why not liberate it? It would seem necessary since, again, disgust at exploitation implies the feeling that it's wrong.

Hypothetically, suppose ironclad proof came forward that the most heinous capitalist exploitation you could imagine is actually sustainable forever. Would Marxism really just fold up and disappear as a result? If not, then morality may be more than simply a means to an end.

[darkblues]

db

[Hivemind]

Oh no, you're right, except I am pretty sure rape and murder are objectively immoral, yeah? Unless an individual has antisocial personality disorder (no, that doesn't mean you are shy, I'm talking about sociopathy), they must see rape and murder as morally unjust.

Cute. I can see the events and effects leading up to either of those outcomes and the effects they would have on all parties involved and can conclude that the effects are generally gonna be negative, but calling it morally objective is pure idealism. I'm more concerned with why murder happens and how it can be prevented and solutions for murderers (rehabilitation, etc) than to bat an eyelid over the fact that a human killed another human over whats more often than not some petty garbage. We cant moralize some issues and not others because we think some have more merit than others (which is worse, rape or murder? The fact that people will give different answers to that is enough to portray the idea that it's not objective nor quantifianble), and we definitely cannot moralize all issues because that would just waste so much time and effort pointlessly. Morality is not objective because it changes with the ages. A long time ago it was considered morally unjust to be greedy to your own ends but in today's age it is almost revered by an impressively large number of people. I can imagine you thinking "but wait that's not morally objective or even moral at all" and to that I can reply with: replace that scenario with any other and you'll realize that in the grand scheme of things they're all pretty much pointless and irrelevant. It's not a question of morality anymore, it's a question of why certain things happen and how they can be prevented if they are detrimental.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Cute. I can see the events and effects leading up to either of those outcomes and the effects they would have on all parties involved and can conclude that the effects are generally gonna be negative, but calling it morally objective is pure idealism. I'm more concerned with why murder happens and how it can be prevented and solutions for murderers (rehabilitation, etc) than to bat an eyelid over the fact that a human killed another human over whats more often than not some petty garbage. We cant moralize some issues and not others because we think some have more merit than others (which is worse, rape or murder? The fact that people will give different answers to that is enough to portray the idea that it's not objective nor quantifianble), and we definitely cannot moralize all issues because that would just waste so much time and effort pointlessly. Morality is not objective because it changes with the ages. A long time ago it was considered morally unjust to be greedy to your own ends but in today's age it is almost revered by an impressively large number of people. I can imagine you thinking "but wait that's not morally objective or even moral at all" and to that I can reply with: replace that scenario with any other and you'll realize that in the grand scheme of things they're all pretty much pointless and irrelevant. It's not a question of morality anymore, it's a question of why certain things happen and how they can be prevented if they are detrimental.

It's a weak argument to say "morality doesn't objectively exist because it changes over the ages" because it makes a number of big assumptions. At the least, you need to flesh out why you are making these assumptions and why other people should accept them.

It is true that materialists should focus more on the causes of certain things but you seem to be making a bunch of metaphysical assumptions which don't help with anything. It is no more foolish to assert that "morality does exist and I know what it looks like!" than "morality does not exist and I am sure of it" What is objective existence? What is subjective existence? Are they mutually exclusive? Why are things which change or are historically contingent "not objective"? Why is the everyday cultural morality accepted by a people the same concept as Morality as such? Just because people have different perspectives on a thing, it does not mean that the thing doesn't exist.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

There exists no morality in the traditional sense. That is a set of morals that apply to all societies. "Good" and "bad" differ from each society and often are directly in contradiction with each other. So, no we should not be moralists in the traditional sense.

You can't calculate how wrong something is. There exists no scientific basis for morality.
What does exist, however, are class-interests. Class-morality, what is good for our class and what is against the interests of our class, is objective and can be used by marxists.

However there exists no universal morality that was the same in all times. Morality is, above all, a social-construct and does not stand above society in any way.

[Decolonize The Left]

The question I pose is simple, should the radical left ever participate in moral discussions, should it ever offer a moral argument?

It depends on what you want to be as a leftist.

If you want to simply analyze a situation and provide that information to others, then morals are not necessary. It would suffice to read Capital.

If you want to change that situation then you need to employ morals for morals are the motivator for change. We would like to think that interests are the motivator for change but interests are easily subverted by morals (case in point: religion). And since we already have interests on our side (we read Capital), we need morals in order to effectively argue our interests to those who have neither.

Morality is indeed a tool and one which will need to be appropriated by the working class in order for any revolution to succeed.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It depends on what you want to be as a leftist.

If you want to simply analyze a situation and provide that information to others, then morals are not necessary. It would suffice to read Capital.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If morals weren't necessary for that, why would he provide any information to anybody? Why even read Marx? Under what moral system, or absence of one, would influence him to do anything? Marx, even in Das Kapital, was not above using remarks indicative of moral outrage. Using your logic though, this is tantamount to saying that the first step in becoming a Marxist is to develop some "value-free" or dispassionate interest in sociology, politics, and the prospect of revolution. Marxism and positivism do not go hand in hand. Passion and reason are better off united than kept apart from one another.