It seems the consensus about morals

[percept¡on]

So why are most arguments for communism made on moral grounds, or with appeals to morality?

I myself believe that morals are subjective (I'm not quite a nihilist but close to it), and therefore I reject all appeals to morality. I would like to take this thread to discuss alternative arguments in favor of communism without said appeals to our moral conscience. If anyone cares to.

;)

[BuyOurEverything]

Can you be more specific about the moral grounds one which communism is argued for?

[kroony]

Impossible. All politics is reducible to ethics. If there is no ethics, there can be no political philosophy.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well take for example the idea that in order to have freedom we must have equality, why would anybody say this. A moral inclination that unfreedom and inquality are morally wrong.

By the way why cant there be a general concensus of morals we all adhere to and morals still be subjective. Justice as fairness as Rawls would call it.

[Akasha]

I think in most cases there is a general consensus of morality. Most human beings can recognize what is fundamentally right or wrong. For example, I think we would all agree that rape is morally wrong. There would be a consensus. We would consent also that random, thoughtless murder was wrong. There are some issues where there is no grey area. Slave labour, unfair wages, lack of benefits and health care, child labour, exploitation, all products of a capitalist society and all morally reprehensible (i don't think i spelled that right). The reason why capitalist and communists differ on this is that capitalist do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. How many times have you heard one of them say "Sure that Mexican worker is only getting .25 cents a day but at least that's something. Better than nothing right?"

I'm not sure I could personally argue for one thing based on non moral grounds. I think for me my politics and my beliefs are based on what I have seen first hand and what I have knowledge of from others. It is a moral stand because it is not just an intellectual response but also an emotional one.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:39 PM
The reason why capitalist and communists differ on this is that capitalist do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. How many times have you heard one of them say "Sure that Mexican worker is only getting .25 cents a day but at least that's something. Better than nothing right?"


So if you agree that different groups with different perspectives will never come to a consensus on moral issues, we must subvert those with morals different from ours, even though (morality being subjective) there is nothing to say that our morals are necessarily better or more just?

Not that this is not what is happening right now.

For example, the moral foundation of the US is that life, liberty and property are man's natural rights. If we take the stand that equality is man's natural right and that property is theft, we are simply swapping one set of ideals for another. How do we decide what morals are the foundation for a just society?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

We should always strive to invert morals...

[Akasha]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 5 2004, 01:35 PM
For example, the moral foundation of the US is that life, liberty and property are man's natural rights. If we take the stand that equality is man's natural right and that property is theft, we are simply swapping one set of ideals for another. How do we decide what morals are the foundation for a just society?
That is the inherent dilemma. We are simply replacing one system with another. However, as a just society we should be working towards building a foundation for the good of all people not for the minority which are wealthy and generally white men. I'm sure any group of intelligent leaders can sit down and determine which system benefits a civilization rather than harming it.

I personally find it ironic that the U$ states that property is one of mans natural rights. The land they were founding their nation upon was not their own. The lands that they go into to conquer for oil are not their own. But that's a different topic.

[pandora]

Very amusing :lol:
We don't all agree on morality so let's throw it out the window instead of deciding on several systems of thought and deciding to agree and disagree into several different philosophies, how Descartian of you.
Let's not just go totally Platoian and throw out everything but math and hard science, oh wait we already did that, and wouldn't that include political science,
but wait in environmental science everyone has different numbers,
and numbers such as Statistics can be completely Sophist and subjective depending on the buyer :lol:
So what are we left with? Your opinion perception? I think not, actually I love your name, it's shows how perceptions without investigation can be faulty.
In reality we do need a moral inventory by say Marx or Dussel or Guevara, and we need to abide by what it is we say we abide by,
if it's that all men and women are created equal than abide by it, not to go too into Kant, but saying morality is completely subjective is iditotic

[gnuneo]

to point out something that should really be obvious - *reality* is subjective, yet somehow we muddle through.

we create consensus, and by using the freemarket in speech, we can disagree and change the common consensual reality - much as western science evolves (in theory).



may i recommend the fantastic book, ZAMM (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance), by robert pirzig, in that he manages to show how values, or morality in this case, is beyond both subject and object, and also the philosophical history where western philosophy lost realisation of this.

its also a damn readable book for far more reasons than that, too.

[elijahcraig]

I myself believe that morals are subjective (I'm not quite a nihilist but close to it), and therefore I reject all appeals to morality. I would like to take this thread to discuss alternative arguments in favor of communism without said appeals to our moral conscience. If anyone cares to.


What do you mean by “subjective”? Morals are decided by the society without the consent of every “subjective” individual. Morals are forced upon people by any given society. This is not a planned choice, but a natural progression of morality.

Each individual can “decide” his actions within this culturally prescribed morality, but he will never be free from “objectivity” in the sense that a character out of a Sade novel would be. He feels guilt or remorse based upon the reactions of those surrounding him.

There is no more morality in the present than in the time of Napoleon or Schnitzler’s Vienna, something Kubrick said.


Well take for example the idea that in order to have freedom we must have equality, why would anybody say this. A moral inclination that unfreedom and inquality are morally wrong.

What is the equality you speak of? How would you measure it? What qualities would be looked at in measuring it? Art? Strength?

Humans are not equal. There is no way to measure it without subjectivity.

Freedom is in the act of liberation, not in equality.

A slave who was not equal could be free if he attained a state of mind which rejected the social controls surrounding him.


I think in most cases there is a general consensus of morality. Most human beings can recognize what is fundamentally right or wrong. For example, I think we would all agree that rape is morally wrong.

Not necessarily. It is wrong because of the feelings of a society towards the “rapist.” In Greek society, (ancient) men who raped were seen as more free. They mastered more, thereby being more free.


We would consent also that random, thoughtless murder was wrong.

Is thoughtful, pointed murder not wrong? I think random thoughtless murder could be a spur of the moment thing, thereby not necessarily a moral choice, but a fit of passion.



Slave labour, unfair wages, lack of benefits and health care, child labour, exploitation, all products of a capitalist society and all morally reprehensible (i don't think i spelled that right). The reason why capitalist and communists differ on this is that capitalist do not believe that they are doing anything wrong. How many times have you heard one of them say "Sure that Mexican worker is only getting .25 cents a day but at least that's something. Better than nothing right?"

That’s also wrong.

It is not a consensus that slavery, unfair wages, lack of benefits and health care, child labor, exploitation, etc. are wrong. IN fact, quite a many people agreed that they were the right thing, and fought very hard to keep them that way. And still do.



That is the inherent dilemma. We are simply replacing one system with another. However, as a just society we should be working towards building a foundation for the good of all people not for the minority which are wealthy and generally white men.

Why is the benefit of the majority better than the benefit of a small minority? It is not necessarily. It is a resentful cry of the worker, wanting more goods and more materials to live on. It has nothing to do with abstract discussions about “morality or ethics” but about the psychology of the flux of have and have-not. It is not right or wrong, as Marx knew. It is simply history.


I'm sure any group of intelligent leaders can sit down and determine which system benefits a civilization rather than harming it.

You just idealized a group of philosopher-kings (dictators) to oversee the herd, like Plato, Hobbes, and any number of others.

[Cerebral Knievel]

Most of the people in this thread that are fixated on attacking the idea that "morals are subjective" are missing the point. None of you can name an actual, unassailable moral absolute.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:39 PM
For example, I think we would all agree that rape is morally wrong.
but that is useless. Even if we agree that rape is wrong, we must then define what rape is and in what case a rape has been committed. If we define rape as sex with a non-consenting partner, that is easy enough to identify in some obvious cases, but what if one partner is a minor, are they able to consent? If not, at what point/age are they able to consent? What if one partner is inebriated - are they able to consent, or is that technically 'rape' as well? Even the most supposedly obvious/absolute moral judgements become subjective at some point.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 09:04 PM



how Descartian of you.

Why and its Cartesian.




Let's not just go totally Platoian and throw out everything but math and hard science

It's Platonism not Platoian or whatever that excuse for a work is. Why would Plato throw out maths and science, show me a quote where he calls for this?

Ignorant post.

[gnuneo]

a point i made in onather thread, which may allay some of the concerns of the materialist, positivist, 'objectivist' marxists (wow - a lot of ists there :o ):

does the fact that we view our worlds subjectively, necessarily deny the possibility that there IS an objective universe?

i think not. and although it seems obvious that individual morality is often subjective, i would argue that there IS a possible objective moral system, or too put it another way, i would argue that there is a moral system that enhances the efficiency of our societies, in the growth and liberation of the individual.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Then its not objective, just an effective inter-subjective system.

Anyway argue it so.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 5 2004, 12:55 PM
So why are most arguments for communism made on moral grounds, or with appeals to morality?
That's a strange statement in my opinion. However true it may be to some degree, especially in the contemporary context, the true nature of Marxism does not appeal to morals at all. Infact, it appeals to objective reality (the material world).

If you are familiar with dialectical materialism and historical materialism, then you can then understand that Marxism is basically a materialist philosphy and that it's analysis of our material world and its history conclude Marxist ideals to be objectively good, rather than morally good.


I myself believe that morals are subjective (I'm not quite a nihilist but close to it), and therefore I reject all appeals to morality. I would like to take this thread to discuss alternative arguments in favor of communism without said appeals to our moral conscience. If anyone cares to.

;)

Well, I think I just outlined what it was. I'm not the best for this point, since I don't believe in it.

Basically material conditions dictate that capitalism will inevitably fall, as it is not a sustainable system. Infact, thinking about it, there is no real arguement about this.

In theory, it is objectively/materially true.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

I also see morality as something subjective yet highly influenced by one's culture. However, as I recently mentioned in another threat, there's a very simple (a bit egoistical) argument for communism/anarchy: in order for me to be free from oppression, everyone else must also must also be so (and most desire so) or else they may be turned into tools to oppress me by those why get thrills from such. Morality never comes into play here.

[gnuneo]

but is "freedom" an objective, or a subjective value term? if it is subjective, then morality is at its core. (have you read pirsig's books?)

cthenthar: i would argue that that is ultimately why marxism will be consigned to the historic dustbin along with newtonian paradigm physics.

marxism is riddled with values (many of them good, BTW), but by claiming that its philosophy is objective (and thus value free), it prevents discussion of these values, (in fact argues that to do so is the hated bourgioue disease) - and thus prevents true evolution of the ideas.

in fact, it effectively becomes a religion, much as the church defined certain elements as beyond discussion.


Then its not objective, just an effective inter-subjective system.

in part yes - reality is to an extremely high degree consensual. However a mystic (unfortunately i cant remember which for the name fetishists) pointed out that the 'higher' or clearer the mystics go, the far more they tend to agree.

in very much the same manner as QM physicists do.

and in fact, as many of the top minds of the last 3 generations have pointed out, many of these 'higher reality' elements are present in both QM, the social sciences, philosphy of science, mysticism, and, perhaps strangest of all, in child/baby psychology.

all of which i say points to an underlying reality, which in similar terms to PI, although a definite 'thing', can it seem never be pinpointed down to a definite term.

wavicles anyone? ;)