Morality And The 'left'

[MKS]

I would like to hear from the more militant leftist about this topic:

Where does the 'Left" draw its ethics or morals from? I know that the majority of Leftists (including myself) are atheists or agnostics, so that precludes any religious influences in regards to ethics. Personally most of my ethics are derived from something of a "secular-humanism", that is to say I do draw lines in the sand on most moral dilemmas and most certainly recognize the distinction between right and wrong.

But I am interested to know where does the more militant leftist faction derive its ethical mores? If it does at all, and how are certain distinctions made?

[bcbm]

Myself.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 6 2006, 09:20 PM
Myself.
Really? So all your moral standards are yours alone and not infulenced by anything? |Ignoring that you most likley have a lot of Judeao-Christian ethical standards from your upbringing (even if it was aethiest, maybe less so if it was eastern) and the odd few ancient greek standards that have endured. That said most moral standards are a person's own.

I use a moral system my friend introduced to me (the name of which I have forgotten for the moment, look out for it in an edit of this post): You should always do what is the most loving thing in any given situation. 'Loving' being defined as minimising sorrow and maximising bliss.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You're probably thinking of Utilitarianism, which influences my moral thought as well.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I don't use morality to evaluate things. At present times I use class justifications. But normally if there is a rational reason to support or oppose something, thats why I do it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 6 2006, 09:54 PM
You're probably thinking of Utilitarianism, which influences my moral thought as well.
I think it's somewhere along the utilitarian road but is non cognetive rather than cognetive. Or I may be talking out of my ares. I'll find out tomorrow though.

[MKS]

'Loving' being defined as minimising sorrow and maximising bliss.

Thats an interesting perspective, and one I can agree with. Ethics or morals should always concentrate on the advancement of prosperity for the indvidual and the whole.




At present times I use class justifications
But isnt there always a question of "right" and "wrong" when using class justifications. i.e. whats "right" for the working class is whats better for humanity. how do you define what is right or wrong?

everyone has some basis for moral/ethical valuations, unless they are truly amoral which would border on sociopath.

Like Jazzratt said most Western concepts or morality derive from the Judeo-Christian traditions as well as some classical (Greco-Roman) influences. It is not atheistic heresy to admit to the moral aptitude of religious teachings.

[Matty_UK]

"Right" and "wrong" are abstractions; they are only defined by what you are punished for as a child. The aim of them is to make society function as best as it can, and as far as I'm concerned that is the only purpose of morality. Which means ethics based upon sexual repression (like religion, nationalism, etcetc) which only maintain a hierarchal and oppressive order are negative morals that do damage to how society could be.

[Avtomatov]

The categorical imperitave.

And for example on the issue of wether certain people should be sterilized, I say would you rather be sterilized or retarded? Basically i take the problem and the bad thing about the solution. I treat it as though I had to make the choice between enduring the pain of the problem or enduring the pain of the solution.

That being said, even forced sterilization of people with inheritable genetic defects is a good and moral thing.

You might say well what about the retards right to choose to have kids. Well you see the retards kids cannot make the choice and they are the ones who should have it. So instead society makes the choice for the potential children, by imagining as though they were the those potential children who should have the choice.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:26 PM
Really? So all your moral standards are yours alone and not infulenced by anything? |Ignoring that you most likley have a lot of Judeao-Christian ethical standards from your upbringing (even if it was aethiest, maybe less so if it was eastern) and the odd few ancient greek standards that have endured.
Obviously my morals and views on such have been influenced by many, many things, but ultimately the morals I hold and judge things by are ones I have decided upon for myself.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 6 2006, 11:18 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 6 2006, 11:18 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 03:26 PM
Really? So all your moral standards are yours alone and not infulenced by anything? |Ignoring that you most likley have a lot of Judeao-Christian ethical standards from your upbringing (even if it was aethiest, maybe less so if it was eastern) and the odd few ancient greek standards that have endured.
Obviously my morals and views on such have been influenced by many, many things, but ultimately the morals I hold and judge things by are ones I have decided upon for myself. [/b]
An equally obvious point. The question (or my interperetation) was how do you come to decide these morals?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:20 PM
The question (or my interperetation) was how do you come to decide these morals?
I think about it rationally.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 6 2006, 11:24 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 6 2006, 11:24 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 05:20 PM
The question (or my interperetation) was how do you come to decide these morals?
I think about it rationally. [/b]
So what is your rational thought process as regards, say, murder? (Just so I know what kind of criteria you have for right and wrong).

[RevMARKSman]

Mine is basically Mr. Spock: Rational thinking. And "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:44 PM
Mine is basically Mr. Spock: Rational thinking. And "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
Slippery slope that one, ends in dodgy justifications ofr murder and authoratarian rule. That kind of thinking has a tendency to moral authoratarianism.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 6 2006, 06:49 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 6 2006, 06:49 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 11:44 PM
Mine is basically Mr. Spock: Rational thinking. And "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
Slippery slope that one, ends in dodgy justifications ofr murder and authoratarian rule. That kind of thinking has a tendency to moral authoratarianism. [/b]
:mellow: I didn't know that could justify a dictatorship. Maybe I'll just stick with thinking.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i.e. whats "right" for the working class is whats better for humanity. how do you define what is right or wrong?

This isn't moralism. Your simply calling whats good for my class "right." That doesn't mean anything. How do I decide whats good for my class? Well I take the consequences and the advancements that would come from an action and see if its worth it.

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

I really think that morality is something the left needs to drop like a hot potato.
Maybe not in its propaganda to Christian America, but in its own beliefs and actions. Ideologies and moralities are quite fungible and have probably done more harm than good, being used by rulers to control. Napoleon said "religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich." Even rational and scientific ideologies such as capitalism and marxism have probably done more harm than good by taking rational ideas and using them as justifications for acts which totally go against those ideas.

We need to stop viewing greed as evil. Like Bakunin said, one person's freedoms are not contrary to another's. (One person's elite privileges may be.) We need to embrace greed in order to unite the whole world. We need to view propertarianism as something that divides the world into segments being owned by individuals, when instead we could ALL own the WHOLE THING. The more we give, the more we get. The more we connect to others, the more we will be whole ourselves. We must do away the morality of guilt, of sacrifice, of repayment and days of reckoning. TAKE TAKE TAKE because it FEELS GOOD.

Note that I am not suggesting the mediated taking of profit excess which capitalists practice everyday, because they are still supporting a system which impoverishes them by preventing them from seizing the whole world hand in hand with the rest of humanity.

I really don't believe in morals of any kind. They've all proven empty compared to rolling by feeling. I support everything from giving out free food to shooting sprees if it makes you feel good. The one thing I suggest is that you make sure you will be happy with the effects as well as performing the activity. This is why I don't go on shooting sprees. This is also why I don't break many laws.

In practice, this ends with me being quite unpredictable. I will phase in and out of pouring love and kindness on someone and being the most cold-hearted, deceitful, manipulative "jerk."

[Amusing Scrotum]

Perceived self-interest. What else?


Originally posted by Generalissimo+--> (Generalissimo)That being said, even forced sterilization of people with inheritable genetic defects is a good and moral thing.[/b]

"And dem niggers and dem Asians....and even dem damn Slavs".

I mean, in your opinion, what kind of "inheritable genetic defect" would require sterilisation? And what kind wouldn't? And, additionally, if you argue that the sterilisation of "retards" is a "good and moral thing" because you wouldn't want to be a "retard", then on what ground could you argue against someone proposing the sterilisation of certain social groups? After all, Joe the fascist could just as easily point out that, to him, sterilising "the Jews" was a "good and moral thing" because he wouldn't like to be a "blood Jew". But unless you accept that the subjective preferences of both Joe and yourself mean shit, on this issue anyway, then you would find yourself having no sound logical argument against the sterilising of "Jews".


Originally posted by [email protected]
Well you see the retards kids cannot make the choice and they are the ones who should have it.

1) Define "retard".

2) In what sense can't they make that choice? From what I know, if a "retard" can actually manage to engage in sexual intercourse, then they'll likely understand the implications of said intercourse. Whether their understanding is as "good" as yours, doesn't matter. Because, in reality, there a plenty of young couples who "get pregnant" and whilst it could plausibly be argued that they didn't understand the full implications of their actions, that simply doesn't warrant any form of societal intervention.

After all, does a 14 year old girl understand the implications of getting pregnant? That is, should the decision over any potential abortion be hers or her parents and/or the State? You see, both the 14 year old girls body and the "retard" girls body, is their sovereign right; which makes it none of your fucking business.


Generalissimo
So instead society makes the choice for the potential children, by imagining as though they were the those potential children who should have the choice.

Hang on a minute. You just said that "the retards kids cannot make the choice" and, therefore, the "retard kids" the "retard kids" have, won't be able to make a choice either. So, given their inability to make choices or understand those choices, why don't we just let them reproduce freely? After all, if they don't understand their actions they don't do any harm, which completely removes any potential mandate that society at large will have for intervention.

[Avtomatov]

No im saying the child who hasnt been conceived cant make his choice which is rightfully his. Does he want to be born retarded. Probably not since we see most people would not want to be retarded. Being born retarded is much worse then being sterilized.

I dont think the majority of people would mind being born by jewish parents. Sterilization would be worse then being jewish.

Now you say if they dont understand the consequences of their actions then they dont do any harm. WTF sense does that make? theres plenty of harm in retards having children. What about the harm done to the child, he/she will be at a huge disadvantage in life. And what about the amount of money and effort it costs a socialist society?

You see socialism is all about equality of opportunity. Not just economic opportunity but also social opportunity. Allowing retards to have children is antithetical to socialism. We would be allowing a child to be born at a huge disadvantage, socially, and economically as a retard has harder time making as much money as a mentally healthy person.

retard: a person of subnormal intelligence

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Generalissimo+--> (Generalissimo)No im saying the child who hasnt been conceived cant make his choice which is rightfully his.[/b]

....or hers.

But, as for the choice, no other child can make that choice. I didn't get a "choice" about anything; if I had, I'd have wanted to be like 6ft odd, have blue eyes and be born in to the Hilton family. But, alas, I was never granted such a choice....and nor were you, or anyone else for that matter.

So, once again, other than your subjective preference, what sound logical basis are you using to justify infringements on the personal liberty of "retard" women as opposed to "ordinary" women? And why can't these arguments be used to justify infringement on the personal liberty of others? Like, say, African-Americans.

After all, a foetus doesn't get the chance to "choose" whether they are "black", so why let the potential mother choose in this instance and not the State? After all, the choice is "rightfully" the "child's", so why do you choose to differentiate between who gets to make that choice.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Does he want to be born retarded.

Well, once again, you don't consider the adult "retards" to be capable of anything much, so how on earth is a "retarded" child going to be able to formulate an opinion on the pros and cons of being a "retard"? That is, according to you, these children won't understand their "retardation" and, therefore, his (or her) "wants" become superfluous.

Additionally, of course, in todays society with its sexist power dynamics, I'm sure plenty of women would say that being born male would have been easier. And these women, unlike your hypothetical "retards", will likely have a mental capacity you deem suitable. So, essentially, would it not be "a good and moral thing" to have female foetuses aborted?

After all, as I said, unlike the hypothetical "retard", these women will be able to comprehend their oppression. So, surely, it would be "a good and moral thing" for society to intervene with the bodies of pregnant women and force them to abort female foetuses.


Generalissimo
Being born retarded is much worse then being sterilized.

And, from this, I assume that you have experiences of both? Otherwise how the fuck can you make any kind of judgement?

[Amusing Scrotum]

He added stuff in an edit:


Originally posted by Generalissimo+--> (Generalissimo)I dont think the majority of people would mind being born by jewish parents. Sterilization would be worse then being jewish.[/b]

Once again, unless you have experience of both, why does your opinion count?

And, additionally, a Nazi Party Official could quite easily have made the point that being born Jewish in Nazi Germany wasn't exactly a beneficial thing. So, because of the Nazi policies directed at Jews, you should logically support the sterilisation of Jews in order to prevent them from being affected by the policies of the Nazi Party. That some fucking circular logic for ya' there.


Originally posted by Generalissimo+--> (Generalissimo)Now you say if they dont understand the consequences of their actions then they dont do any harm. WTF sense does that make?[/b]

Uh, no. What I said was, that if "retard" parents are incapable of understanding how shit it is to be a "retard", then the "retard" children won't either. So, there's no harm involved here because no party considers themselves to have been harmed.


Originally posted by Generalissimo
What about the harm done to the child, he/she will be at a huge disadvantage in life.

Not really. Like everyone else, they'll do what they want as an individual. There's no "disadvantage" because, quite simply, there are no "advantages" either. That is, there's no "career ladder" or "pay system", so your capabilities matter little.

Plus, once again, you've already said that they don't understand their "retardation". So their relative "disadvantages" and "advantages" don't matter at all.


Originally posted by Generalissimo
Allowing retards to have children is antithetical to socialism.

Allowing you to live is antithetical to my mental health. So perhaps I'll take a baseball bat to your face. Is Monday good for you? Because I've got nothing on then....and I always like to do something constructive with my time. :)

And, aside from that, all kids of people may well prove to be a drain on a communist system of social relations. But that doesn't mean that we'll execute every "lazy" person. Mainly because, amongst other things, that would require some kind of repressive State machinery that really is antithetical to communist social relations.


Originally posted by Generalissimo
We would be allowing a child to be born at a huge disadvantage, socially....

Same could be said of ginger kids, they get the fuck ribbed out of them. So, should we sterilise ginger people too?


[email protected]
....and economically as a retard has harder time making as much money as a mentally healthy person.

And why exactly does that matter?


Generalissimo
retard: a person of subnormal intelligence

1) Define "intelligence"?

2) Tell me how one measures a "subnormal" level of "intelligence"?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:26 PM
So what is your rational thought process as regards, say, murder? (Just so I know what kind of criteria you have for right and wrong).
I would consider the positives and negatives of such an event. I think violenica.proletariat is perhaps on to something with his view as well.

[black magick hustla]

i ultimately draw the morals from myself.

Sure, many things have influenced me, but i realized that wasting agonizing minutes in pondering about a way to objectively find what is morally right or wrong is ultimately futile.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:32 AM
i ultimately draw the morals from myself.

Sure, many things have influenced me, but i realized that wasting agonizing minutes in pondering about a way to objectively find what is morally right or wrong is ultimately futile.
Well said.

[Forward Union]

I use a moral system my friend introduced to me (the name of which I have forgotten for the moment, look out for it in an edit of this post): You should always do what is the most loving thing in any given situation. 'Loving' being defined as minimising sorrow and maximising bliss

This is Situation Ethics. Sometimes known as the WWJD principal (what would Jesus Do)
I think it's shit.

My morality is probably based on Autonomism more than anything.

[Comrade-Z]

i ultimately draw the morals from myself.

Sure, many things have influenced me, but i realized that wasting agonizing minutes in pondering about a way to objectively find what is morally right or wrong is ultimately futile.

Pretty much. One could best characterize my "morality" as a type of hedonistic egoism--whatever increases my net happiness is good, whatever decreases it is bad.

[Anti-Red]

You are all wrong. My basic morality is that yes, there are moral absolutes. Even though it there are moral absolutes, it is impossible to know what those absolutes are, so outside of the fundamental ideas of murder, stealing, and things like it being wrong, we do not know about the little things. For instance, I first came up with my ideas because of something that happened in middle school. The teacher said that because people were wearing at least what the school board, not the students or even the teachers, perceieved was "questionable" therefore making it "immoral" that the dress code was now to be enforced with zero tolerance, and I tell you it was for about a month until they just kind of conceded it went too far. Anyway, the teacher said the issue was not up for debate and that it was "black and white" from then on. I asked myself in my head, "I thought issues like murdering an innocent person was black and white, but not little things! Sure, somewhere in the universe is a god who decides what is right and wrong, and surely he knows what people have in their heads. He is certainly displeased when a girl dresses provacatively just to gain sexual attention, but why would he care if someone accidentally wore shorts too short? Also, why does he really care if someone has ripped jeans?" And then I decided right then and there my moral philosophy. That being said, my belief is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm anybody else physically or disrupt society within reason, therefore while wearing anything you want is okay, there is a limit, such as appearing nude in public. As to that, I think it is possible to enforce standing ordinances, such as ones dealing with public nudity, but any attempt to enforce morality is not workable, and wrong, because people are incapable of knowing, beyond a general idea, what morality actually is. To be blunt, I do not believe in social engineering, whether it is left-wingers trying to create their dream of a "progressive" society or right-wingers trying to create their perception of Jesusland. That being said, my whole idea can be summed up in one quote...

"The best way of creating a moral society is to do right yourself, others can worry about their own actions because it is not our job, they are them and we are us, actions should have natural consequences, not legal ones."

[bcbm]

o outside of the fundamental ideas of murder, stealing, and things like it being wrong

I don't agree that these are fundamentally wrong. There are no moral absolutes, such an idea is irrational and rooted in religious thinking.

[Anti-Red]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 11 2006, 09:10 AM

o outside of the fundamental ideas of murder, stealing, and things like it being wrong

I don't agree that these are fundamentally wrong. There are no moral absolutes, such an idea is irrational and rooted in religious thinking.
Your hero Stalin also thought that and slaughtered 40 million, of course you probably deny that like a Nazi denies the Holocaust.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Anti-Red+Jul 11 2006, 09:30 PM--> (Anti-Red @ Jul 11 2006, 09:30 PM)
black banner black [email protected] 11 2006, 09:10 AM

o outside of the fundamental ideas of murder, stealing, and things like it being wrong

I don't agree that these are fundamentally wrong. There are no moral absolutes, such an idea is irrational and rooted in religious thinking.
Your hero Stalin also thought that and slaughtered 40 million, of course you probably deny that like a Nazi denies the Holocaust. [/b]
Bbbg is a libertarian you moron. Stalin would have been his enemy had he lived back then.

[Anti-Red]

Actually most of you would probably be bowing down before him.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 11 2006, 02:04 AM
You are all wrong.
Good way to start. I must confess I couildn't be arsed to read your essay from that point forward because you couldn't really have said anything useful if you have to start like that.