Morality

[VonClausewitz]

I, and serious communists in general, reject morals in favor of rationality.

Now, that is a very arrogant, and possibly slightly pretentious statement, so, can someone explain to me just what that is supposed to mean ? I personally would've thought that having some kind of moral code control the extremes of behaviour would be a good idea, or would that be oppressive ? I'm just curious, as I've never even heard the more typically banner-waving types at my university come out with something like that.

(If you have an article or three on morality redstar, you might care to link me in ?)

[redstar2000]

It's a "murky subject", but I did try my hand at it once...

Communist "Morality"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083630137&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:23 PM

I, and serious communists in general, reject morals in favor of rationality.

Now, that is a very arrogant, and possibly slightly pretentious statement, so, can someone explain to me just what that is supposed to mean ? I personally would've thought that having some kind of moral code control the extremes of behaviour would be a good idea, or would that be oppressive ? I'm just curious, as I've never even heard the more typically banner-waving types at my university come out with something like that.

(If you have an article or three on morality redstar, you might care to link me in ?)
I am nowhere near as learned as RedStar in this, but I think what the fellow you quoted meant was that communists do not see any "Universal Laws of Morality" set forth by any identity, holistic or cultural.

I guess he means we view things objectively, within the material realm, and we reject superfluous, baseless morality that has no basis in pragmatism, when it comes to morality.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Typed 'moral' in on Dictionary.com and the most relevant definition I got was this:


Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong

Okay, well if morals are based on one's opinion of right and wrong and not any belief in a higher power, then surely there can be nothing wrong with saying Communists have morals, even if they are morals based on rationality, right?

I mean, whatever about denying the existence of 'good' and 'evil' -- two concepts for which there is no physical or logical proof -- but surely we Communists must believe some acts to be more 'right' or more 'wrong' than others. But we don't do this based on religious or superstitious beliefs, we do it based on how said act would fit in with our view of how society should be.

For example, we as Communists view a perfect society as one where everyone is equal, there is no exploitation or greed. Thefore, one could say we view the exploitation of the workers as an immoral act because it is detrimental to the idea of a Communist society, just as a religious person would call sex outside marriage immoral because it is detrimental to their idea of a society ruled by what they believe to be God's will.

I for one am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God and I don't care. However, I do believe that if there is a god, then he doesn't (and shouldn't) have any control over the material world. Nevertheless, I would often find myself condemning some acts such as bullying, theft (of the poor and underpriviledged), exploitation and rape to name but a few examples as immoral. these are because these acts completely contradict my view of a perfect Communist society, which to me is as heaven and God is to a priest; it is my goal, my ambition, my raison d'etre. I have no problem with calling myself a moral person.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 10:25 PM
Typed 'moral' in on Dictionary.com and the most relevant definition I got was this:


Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong

Okay, well if morals are based on one's opinion of right and wrong and not any belief in a higher power, then surely there can be nothing wrong with saying Communists have morals, even if they are morals based on rationality, right?

I mean, whatever about denying the existence of 'good' and 'evil' -- two concepts for which there is no physical or logical proof -- but surely we Communists must believe some acts to be more 'right' or more 'wrong' than others. But we don't do this based on religious or superstitious beliefs, we do it based on how said act would fit in with our view of how society should be.

For example, we as Communists view a perfect society as one where everyone is equal, there is no exploitation or greed. Thefore, one could say we view the exploitation of the workers as an immoral act because it is detrimental to the idea of a Communist society, just as a religious person would call sex outside marriage immoral because it is detrimental to their idea of a society ruled by what they believe to be God's will.

I for one am an agnostic, I don't know if there is a God and I don't care. However, I do believe that if there is a god, then he doesn't (and shouldn't) have any control over the material world. Nevertheless, I would often find myself condemning some acts such as bullying, theft (of the poor and underpriviledged), exploitation and rape to name but a few examples as immoral. these are because these acts completely contradict my view of a perfect Communist society, which to me is as heaven and God is to a priest; it is my goal, my ambition, my raison d'etre. I have no problem with calling myself a moral person.
Exactly, by nature however, these things are rationally not conductive to society. That's what forms communist morality.

[Zingu]

Anti-Dühring: Morality is Class Morality

The conceptions of good and bad have varied so much from nation to nation and from age to age that they have often been in direct contradiction to each other. But all the same, someone may object, good is not bad and bad is not good; if good is confused with bad there is an end to all morality, and everyone can do and leave undone whatever he cares. This is also, stripped of his oracular phrases, Herr Duhring's opinion. But the matter cannot be so simply disposed of. If it was such an easy business there would certainly be no dispute at all over good and bad; everyone would know what was good and what was bad. But how do things stand today? What morality is preached to us today? There is first Christian-feudal morality, inherited from past centuries of faith; and this again has two main subdivisions, Catholic and Protestant moralities, each of which in turn has no lack of further subdivisions from the Jesuit-Catholic and Orthodox-Protestant to loose "advanced" moralities. Alongside of these we find the modern bourgeois morality and with it too the proletarian morality of the future, so that in the most advanced European countries alone the past, present and future provide three great groups of moral theories which are in force simultaneously and alongside of each other. Which is then the true one? Not one of them, in the sense of having absolute validity; but certainly that morality which contains the maximum of durable elements is the one which, in the present, represents the overthrow of the present, represents the future: that is, the proletarian.

But when we see that the three classes of modern society, the feudal aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, each have their special morality, we can only draw the one conclusion, that men, consciously or unconsciously, derive their moral ideas in the last resort from the practical relations on which they carry on production and exchange.

But nevertheless there is much that is common to the three moral theories mentioned above -- is this not a least a portion of a morality which is externally fixed? These moral theories represent three different stages of the same historical development, and have therefore a common historical background, and for that reason alone they necessarily have much in common. Even more. In similar or approximately similar stages of economic development moral theories must of necessity be more or less in agreement. From the moment when private property in movable objects developed, in all societies in which this private property existed there must be this moral law in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this law thereby become an eternal moral law? By no means. In a society in which the motive of stealing has been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the teacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!

We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which transcend history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all former moral theories are the product, in the last analysis, of the economic stage which society had reached at that particular epoch. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality was always a class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, as soon as the oppressed class has become powerful enough, it has represented the revolt against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed.


If morality is class morality...and we aim for a classless society...get it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which transcend history and the differences between nations. We maintain on the contrary that all former moral theories are the product, in the last analysis, of the economic stage which society had reached at that particular epoch. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality was always a class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, as soon as the oppressed class has become powerful enough, it has represented the revolt against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed.

Okay there's a valid point there, but surely a moral would be something we have regardless of social circumstance, this being what seperates morals from ambitions or goals? For example, rape is a vile, disgusting and ultimately wrong act regardless of whether we live in a monarchy, democracy, capitalism, Communism etc.?

[Atlas Swallowed]

If someones actions are harmful to others and/or the enviorment that sustains humanity they are wrong and should be opposed. Especially if it is for the sole purpose of accumilating wealth and/or power.

Do not know if that would be concidered morals or not. The core of my personal beliefs, not taken from any organazation or philosopher.

I do not see anthing wrong with personal morals as long as they are not forced upon others or detrimental to others but then again I am not a Communist and a half assed atheist(more agnostic) at best.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedStar1916
Okay there's a valid point there, but surely a moral would be something we have regardless of social circumstance, this being what separates morals from ambitions or goals? For example, rape is a vile, disgusting and ultimately wrong act regardless of whether we live in a monarchy, democracy, capitalism, Communism etc.?

But "what" is "rape"? The definition of "rape" changes with the changes in class society.

It was once commonplace for prosperous middle-aged males to "marry" girls who had barely reached puberty.

That would now be prosecuted as rape...and possibly "child-rape" with heavy prison time.

Moreover, raping the women of your conquered enemies was not considered "real rape" at all...but part of the "spoils of war". This is not only still true in much of Africa but was true during the wars surrounding the collapse of Yugoslavia. Even UN soldiers in Africa have been caught raping African women. They just get "reassigned". :angry:

There was a time in the "west" not all that long ago when the concept of a husband raping his wife was thought to be "nonsense". Now, at least in many U.S. states, it is a crime.

Things change.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Atlas Swallowed]

Rape is detrimental to the woman being raped therefore wrong. In a perfect world the rapists would have the shit kicked out of them and get the opportunity to see how they like a rod of warm flesh forced inside them.