Morals are inherently bourgeois?

[[email protected]]

I've been reading a lot into existentialism and nihilism (completely different, but complimentary, no?) and began to wonder while reading Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotion how a man so focused on individual resposibility and what frankly appeared to me as Rand-style egoism could subscribe to Marxism-- granted this could be a result of my limited and novel understanding of Existentialism (if so, please politely correct me) but regadless, it got me thinking. Could it be that morality in general is a totally arbitraty concept used basically only to opress, or is there any value at all in a set of intrinsic, unwavering ethics?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

morality is a part of social life, but at the same time any morality will be shaped by the class structure of society on a very deep level. So contemporary morality is bourgeois, and ancient morality was aristocratic. Don Quixote exemplifies medieval, aristocratic morality, while the austere businessman who theoretically respects the right of others exemplifies bourgeois morality. The problem for a Marxist is that these moral ideals do not reflect the interests of the working class or other marginalized groups. We as individuals might have some kind of seemingly unwavering ethic that we think of as intrinsic, but we must understand that the social norms as a whole (which shape our own morality) are informed from the interests of a particular class of people.

[(A)]

As the British Marxist Chris Harman explained it,
Marx saw that what is of cardinal importance is not the personal behavior of the individual but the struggle between social forces, not personal morality but the fight to establish the good society. And in that struggle, the language of moralism was all too often the language used by the ruling class in order to constrain those who opposed it….
By contrast, every real development of working class struggle does begin to throw up the sort of values that point to the possibility of a truly cooperative and therefore truly human society. As against the atomization of the market, such struggles raise notions of solidarity, of mutual support, of a pooling of abilities, of cooperative endeavor.So what morals are created by the ruling class and what morals will free men and women create when the inhumanity of Capitalism ends?
And what morality's that where created by the inequality of mankind are wrong? I mean is theft wrong because the rich say it is or because we should not steel... Even if our life depended on it?

Do not kill unless in defense of yourself or others?
Do not steal unless it is necessary for survival and all hope of aid is lost?
Do not impose your will on another, physically or mentally?
All things should be done in quality unless there is an imminent need?

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

morality is innate, though its particulars and particularly its limits are directed by naturalizing social norms.

[cyu]

Whoever controls the mainstream media will control mainstream morality. Of course, those who oppose the establishment oppose it based on different morality.

See also discussion of revenge at http://www.revleft.com/vb/revenge-ever-justified-t179128/index2.html

[Sea]

The great moral humbug predates capitalism, so no, morals cannot be inherently bourgeois.

Bourgeois morals are inherently bourgeois, which goes without saying.

[Црвена]

The bourgeoisie will often pull "morals," out of thin air in order to justify their actions, and since they're the ruling class and the ideas of a society are the ideas of the ruling class, this will go unquestioned by the majority of people and consequently these morals invented by the bourgeoisie will look as though they're set in stone, so it will appear that all morals are bourgeois because the morals enforced and supported by the bourgeoisie will be the most prominent...if any of this makes sense. But actually, bourgeoisie and capitalists are the most immoral people, because they use greed, selfishness and deception to gain material wealth and then become more greedy, selfish and deceptive because these are traits rewarded by the capitalist system.

[exeexe]

Having a high morale in times of war (and you should always start out our your argument with an example from war :D) means that you will fight on despite the enemy getting an advantage. Having morale means to have discipline.

Now in times of peace morale means to "not give in". That your opinions are not shaped by materialistic wealth or selfish opportunities. This requires discipline too. Mental discipline or morale.
Opinions should be shaped by what is right and what is wrong. But what is right and what is wrong is a whole different story so you will have to live with that.

[Zoroaster]

I've been reading a lot into existentialism and nihilism (completely different, but complimentary, no?) and began to wonder while reading Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotion how a man so focused on individual resposibility and what frankly appeared to me as Rand-style egoism could subscribe to Marxism-- granted this could be a result of my limited and novel understanding of Existentialism (if so, please politely correct me) but regadless, it got me thinking. Could it be that morality in general is a totally arbitraty concept used basically only to opress, or is there any value at all in a set of intrinsic, unwavering ethics?

Sartre was no egoist. Just saying.

[Rafiq]

All characteristics that distinguish our existing societies are utilized by the bourgeoisie - but that does not make them inherently bourgeois. The communists possess a morality that is distinct not only in composite but in essence from that of the class enemy. To attack morality as a concept is not only dishonest (such "edginess" at times is moralistic in nature, how can one talk of morality when they are for animal rights?) it is to concede to the class enemy universality wherein your only purpose is to negatively supplement them, to 'keep them in check' and so on. To attack morality itself is like to attack the use of arms and violence, to write them off as exclusively weapons of the enemy - like the absence of force and strength, the rejection of a Communist morality is to enfeeble the cause of the revolution, to leave it bare and vulnerable. We will not give the oppressors, the bourgeois pigs unchallenged claim to what is right and wrong and proceed to attack such concepts. With utmost conviction those fighting in the name of Communism must solemnly recognize in their hearts that our cause is truly a just one.

That is not to say we do not oppose moralism, or nonsensical, unscientific notions of morality in relation to society. As materialists, we know very well the ideological nature of morality.

[Decolonize The Left]

To follow up on Rafiq's post, morality is, above all else, a tool. Like all linguistic phenomenon and their relationships to material reality, these tools are what we use to formulate coherent stories for ourselves within our material context.

What it will come down to, as it always does, is who has the greater will to use morality to their advantage - us, or the capitalist class? Who will be smarter and more efficient with their use of morality?

Rafiq's post above is a fine example of using morality to our benefit as a class. Whether or not it "exists" as such is irrelevant much like whether or not the notion of "steadiness" exists is irrelevant. You would look at a bookshelf and say, 'it appears to be upright and not wobbly, but, aside from it's general unmoveableness.... is it really steady?" Likewise you wouldn't watch a cop beat a homeless woman and wonder "That's wrong but is wrongness really something to which I can relate?" The bookshelf is obviously steady, the cop beating the homeless woman is obviously wrong, and morality is ours to command should we decide to command it.