Morals and ethics

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Okay, so lately I have been seeing more and more discussion and debate focus around the issue of morals and ethics. One person will make an argument, perhaps not even based on morality, but with a moral undertone, and is immediately shot down by a myriad of other members claiming that morals have no place in revolutionary theory.

There is also the question of an absolute right or wrong, good or bad. Many people on this board tend to discredit the notions of absolute right or wrong, claiming them to be a product of subjective morality. However, if one shuns subjective morality and yet is motivated to oppose the current system and advocate a new, Communist system, they must have some belief system, they must hold opinions on certain issues (obviously). Many tend to justify such beliefs claiming them to be "objectively desirable", but surely the existence of objective desirability implies the existence of an objective (and therefore absolute) right or wrong? That is, something would be objectively desirable because it serves some objective/absolute good.

What are your opinions on these issues? I will post mine later, after I have viewed some responses. Thank you.

[Hate Is Art]

This isn't going to be too structured I'm afraid so just try to bear with me:

1. One person will make an argument, perhaps not even based on morality, but with a moral undertone, and is immediately shot down by a myriad of other members claiming that morals have no place in revolutionary theory.

Ok then, a claim to morality has no place in the revolution. You cannot force your own idea of what is right and wrong on someone else, as right and wrong are subjective, and in flux. Revolutionary Theory is based upon rationality, not base, animalistic instinctive reactions over certain issues.

2. However, if one shuns subjective morality and yet is motivated to oppose the current system and advocate a new, Communist system, they must have some belief system, they must hold opinions on certain issues (obviously). Many tend to justify such beliefs claiming them to be "objectively desirable", but surely the existence of objective desirability implies the existence of an objective (and therefore absolute) right or wrong?

It's a tricky question, objective desirablity is an odd one, as it does imply the existence of an objective right or wrong, which doesn't exist. So I prefer to describe it as rational right or wrong. To look at the situation using our human powers of rationale, we can come to the conclusion that what is desirable for all of humanity is a system of communism.

Or alternatively, with out this system of objectivity, and although it can be used to justify some atrocious political standpoints, we each have our own subjective view of what is right and wrong, and can justify our political opinions because we believe that what we are doing is best.

[rouchambeau]

Hate is Art:

Ok then, a claim to morality has no place in the revolution. You cannot force your own idea of what is right and wrong on someone else,
What do you mean by "cannot"? Is it physically impossible or are you saying that one shouldn't force their ideas on others?

as right and wrong are subjective, and in flux. Revolutionary Theory is based upon rationality, not base, animalistic instinctive reactions over certain issues.

Morality is not subjective. In fact, Kant has a brilliant ethical theory based on--at's right you guessed it--reason.

It's a tricky question, objective desirablity is an odd one, as it does imply the existence of an objective right or wrong
Desire has to do with what a person wants, not what a person thinks should or should not happen.

So I prefer to describe it as rational right or wrong.
Just a second ago you stated that right and wrong are subjective. Reason is not subjective.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Hate Is [email protected] 11, 2007 07:42 pm
Revolutionary Theory is based upon rationality, not base, animalistic instinctive reactions over certain issues.

2. However, if one shuns subjective morality and yet is motivated to oppose the current system and advocate a new, Communist system, they must have some belief system, they must hold opinions on certain issues (obviously). Many tend to justify such beliefs claiming them to be "objectively desirable", but surely the existence of objective desirability implies the existence of an objective (and therefore absolute) right or wrong?

It's a tricky question, objective desirablity is an odd one, as it does imply the existence of an objective right or wrong, which doesn't exist. So I prefer to describe it as rational right or wrong. To look at the situation using our human powers of rationale, we can come to the conclusion that what is desirable for all of humanity is a system of communism.

Or alternatively, with out this system of objectivity, and although it can be used to justify some atrocious political standpoints, we each have our own subjective view of what is right and wrong, and can justify our political opinions because we believe that what we are doing is best.
Revolutionary theory is a rational approach to an ethical question, that of Human Relationships, any theory about that has some sense of Morality. Looking for a system that is desirable to all is also Moral, the fact that the desirablity of everyone is important, theres no rationality to say why the desirability of everyone is important, all you have to go by is Human Morality.

Kants Ethical theory was basically that if you MUST apply the ethic universally, but I think it goes beyond that, is something imborn into people and ethical code.

You can't say Socialism is without ethics, at the base of almost all Socialistic thinking is the concept that all men are free and equal, and should be treated as such, thats an ethical statement no matter how you look at it.

[Eleutherios]

I would highly recommend watching this video by Richard Dawkins on the evolution of morality and cooperative behavior in our species:

Nice Guys Finish First - Google Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8068309038544717701)

[Hate Is Art]

Yeahhh, I kinda wrote most of that on an evil Extacy come-down and it doesn't make much sense really.


Morality is not subjective. In fact, Kant has a brilliant ethical theory based on--at's right you guessed it--reason.

Morality is subjective, what is morally wrong to you can be morally right to me and vice versa.

[rouchambeau]

Morality is subjective, what is morally wrong to you can be morally right to me and vice versa.

Until I post an argument for an objective ethic I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You can't say Socialism is without ethics, at the base of almost all Socialistic thinking is the concept that all men are free and equal, and should be treated as such, thats an ethical statement no matter how you look at it.

Thanks, this is basically what I believe. I believe public and social affairs should be conducted in as rational and logical a way as possible, however a system based on logic implies certain infallible premises from which one can infer to determine a logical course of action, and these infallible premises are, by definition, a moral code (as I said in another post).

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:47 am

You can't say Socialism is without ethics, at the base of almost all Socialistic thinking is the concept that all men are free and equal, and should be treated as such, thats an ethical statement no matter how you look at it.
There is one socialism which is not based on such a claim: Marxism

[RedLenin]

There is one socialism which is not based on such a claim: Marxism
I disagree. Marxism is a scientific understanding of history, class struggle, and the course of development. However, ethics do play a role. Why should we seek to abolish capitalism and bring about socialism? Socialism is not inevitable, it is either socialism or barbarism. Why should we want the former? I think that all socialists, marxists included, hold to some form of humanistic ethics.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Everyone has some kind of ethical code, like it or not. Obviously we have to realisethe immense subjectiveness of the idea, but the idea is there.

I'm wondering if questioning the validity of ethics is a kind of ethical code in itself.

[BobKKKindle$]

Even if we try to judge any political and economic system on objective grounds, we still have to make a value judgement on the criteria we use to judge different systems, and this involves a moral decision, or, at the very least, an element of subjectivity and personal opinion that is in opposition to the idea of objective and scientific analysis. Why do we choose one measure, indicator, or ideal in judging an economic system over another? Why is equality a better indicator or something more worthy than, say, net wealth? These are questions that have to involve a degree of subjectivity, even if one applies marxist analysis. This is of special importance if one, like myself, is middle class and marxist - one cannot say one advocates a socialist revolution because it is in one's class interests to do so, and I find it hard to believe anyone is a socialist because they believe in the historical inevitability of revolution.

[gilhyle]

Whether or not you think Marxism should be based on a moral theory is a different question than whether it is so based. It is a matter of record that in the major classical statements of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto and the Anti Duhring, it is not based on an articulated ethical theory.

It is also true that in the Anti Duhring and in Kautsky's Ethics and the materialist Conception of History (the works which mostly influenced the building of the Second International) there is a critical account of ethics which does not rely on any ethical theory.

If we look then at Lenin's writings, at the major documents of the Third International. at Bukharin and Preobrazhensky's ABC of Communism, there is no reliance on any ethical theory.

Trotsky's Their Morals and Ours rejects ethical theorising.

So as a matter of FACT, Marxism has not been based on an ethical theory, unlike many branches of social democracy, particulary as it moved further and further away from Marxism. It is also unlike much of anarchism which often has a conventional underlying ethical theory...and so on.

Bobkindles point is a significant one...but because it is insignificant. It is not part of the role of Marxism as a theory to underpin or legitimise the reasons why middle class people cleave to the revolutionary cause - that is their personal business. The theory explains why broad social forces exist which will support revolution, the posiition of private individuals is a matter for private reflection.

[cb9's_unity]

Simply marxism is based completely around class struggle and not ethics, but this does not mean idividual marxists do not oppose capitalism ethically also. Actually many if not most marxists become communists because of ethics and the communist manifesto even states that some of the liberal bourgeoisie will actually join the proletariat. I believe marxists stay with the left in large part for the class stuggle though. Oh and though it may seem as though anarchism has more of an ehtical base, i believe for they stay for the same reasons as marxists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:00 pm
However, if one shuns subjective morality and yet is motivated to oppose the current system and advocate a new, Communist system, they must have some belief system, they must hold opinions on certain issues (obviously)
Why is rejecting morality equal to no belief in something?


Many tend to justify such beliefs claiming them to be "objectively desirable", but surely the existence of objective desirability implies the existence of an objective (and therefore absolute) right or wrong?

Is communism necessary?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Why is rejecting morality equal to no belief in something?
Well I am just talking about morals as fundamental rights or wrongs here. If you believe in something, you obviously believe it to be right, so you are adapting a system of morality that favours said belief.


Is communism necessary?
Depends on who you ask, and that's my point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:48 am

Why is rejecting morality equal to no belief in something?
Well I am just talking about morals as fundamental rights or wrongs here. If you believe in something, you obviously believe it to be right, so you are adapting a system of morality that favours said belief.
This is an epistemological debate.

What do you believe is the basis of knowledge (truth)?




Is communism necessary?
Depends on who you ask, and that's my point.

What does opinion mean in regards to this question?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What do you believe is the basis of knowledge (truth)?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me what I believe to be true, or where I think truth is derived from?

If it's the former, I think the truth is that Communism will be to the benefit of the greater good of society.

If the latter, I'm not quite sure and I don't think it's relevant. I think absolute truth can only exist outside of any context involving "right', "wrong", "good" or "bad".


What does opinion mean in regards to this question?
Em... nothing, I wasn't talking about opinion. I was referring to differences in social and material conditions, and the resulting fact that any change is going to have different relative effects on different people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:03 am

What do you believe is the basis of knowledge (truth)?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me what I believe to be true, or where I think truth is derived from?
I'm asking you where you think truth is derived from?


If the latter, I'm not quite sure and I don't think it's relevant.

If you "believe" in something as you point out you are asserting it is "right" and therefore, whether you realise or not, are asserting "truth".

Well, if that is the case it is important to understand how you arrive at such a conclusion? How do you achieve your truth (belief in right)?

Moralism is regarded as a truth and one must understand what truth is before you reject or accept morals.



What does opinion mean in regards to this question?
Em... nothing, I wasn't talking about opinion.

Yes you were. You said: "Depends on who you ask"

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If you "believe" in something as you point out you are asserting it is "right" and therefore, whether you realise or not, are asserting "truth".
Yes, but not absolute truth. For example, I may assert that Communism is better because it benefits society to a greater extent. A CEO may assert that capitalism is better because it benefits himself to a greater extent. Both our claims are (presumably) true (Communism is better for society than capitalism, capitalism is better for the CEO than Communism), yet no objective conclusion has been reached as regards the superiority of either ideology, because the CEO and I differ in our fundamental ethos'.



Well, if that is the case it is important to understand how you arrive at such a conclusion? How do you achieve your truth (belief in right)?
As I said, because it agrees with my ethical belief that society and the common good of the people come before the individual, or profit for that matter.


Moralism is regarded as a truth and one must understand what truth is before you reject or accept morals.

What do you believe truth to be?


Yes you were. You said: "Depends on who you ask"
Yes, my point being that Communism is necessary for many workers (and those of lower material fortune than the workers) that are being screwed over by Communism and so it is only rational for them to want to abolish capitalism. It is not, however, necessary for CEOs, or, say, priests.

However I do now see where you're coming from with the opinion thing, in that I believe Communism is, perhaps not necessary, but desirable. Again, a capitalist would disagree.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 02:24 am


If you "believe" in something as you point out you are asserting it is "right" and therefore, whether you realise or not, are asserting "truth".
Yes, but not absolute truth.
What is absolute truth?

You cannot have this discussion if you have not propositioned where truth comes from in the first place.


I may assert that Communism is better because it benefits society to a greater extent.

Why?


yet no objective conclusion has been reached as regards the superiority of either ideology, because the CEO and I differ in our fundamental ethos'

Well, I would say that one can reach an objective conclusion, but first one must understand the basis of truth (knowledge).


What do you believe truth to be?

I know truth to be facts.




Well, if that is the case it is important to understand how you arrive at such a conclusion? How do you achieve your truth (belief in right)?
As I said, because it agrees with my ethical belief that society and the common good of the people come before the individual, or profit for that matter.

No, that's the conclusion. I'm asking how you arrived at that conclusion. Why does it agree with your "ethical belief". Indeed, what is an ethical belief? Are you saying it is truth?


However I do now see where you're coming from with the opinion thing, in that I believe Communism is, perhaps not necessary, but desirable.

Human society and activity is based on progressing from one point of existence to another. That's not desirable necessarily, but it is necessary. Otherwise humanity would cease to exist.

I would proposition that, based on reason, communism is necessary in order to continue that progression.


Again, a capitalist would disagree.

But a capitalist could not disagree that communism was necessary.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm really fucking tired and grrr so excuse this shit post but you seem to be misconstruing my point, which is that there is no absolute truth is regards good or bad, or desirability. Absolute undeniable objective truth is saying 1 > 2. Saying 2 is qualitatively better because it is greater than 1, however, is not absolute truth. Similarly, you may assert correctly that Communism will be of greater benefit to society as a whole. However, this does not make it objectively better, in order for one to conclude that Communism is better on these grounds one most hold the common social good above all else.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:14 am
I'm really fucking tired and grrr so excuse this shit post but you seem to be misconstruing my point, which is that there is no absolute truth is regards good or bad, or desirability. Absolute undeniable objective truth is saying 1 > 2. Saying 2 is qualitatively better because it is greater than 1, however, is not absolute truth. Similarly, you may assert correctly that Communism will be of greater benefit to society as a whole. However, this does not make it objectively better, in order for one to conclude that Communism is better on these grounds one most hold the common social good above all else.
Largely, I was saying the same thing but it does not answer many of my pointss

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:14 am
Similarly, you may assert correctly that Communism will be of greater benefit to society as a whole. However, this does not make it objectively better, in order for one to conclude that Communism is better on these grounds one most hold the common social good above all else.
Exactly, meaning there must be morals in Communism and really any Social theory. I believe in God which I believe is the objective source of our Morality, other people don't and thats ok, which means either they take some phylisophical approach to it i.e. Kant or something, or they take it as purely subjective, which is also OK.

The Marxist idea of compleatly 'Scientific' Socialism is really just rediculous because there is no objective basis for any Social theory, because they are about human relationships and decisions, it MUST contain some Ethics. Another thing I've noticed is a lot of Marxists while claiming to be 'Scientific' end up just as Dogmatic and closed minded as relegious people, sometimes even more so.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:55 pm
I believe in God which I believe is the objective source of our Morality
You can't even prove that god exists, so how can it be 'objective'

[RevMARKSman]

However, if one shuns subjective morality and yet is motivated to oppose the current system and advocate a new, Communist system, they must have some belief system, they must hold opinions on certain issues (obviously). Many tend to justify such beliefs claiming them to be "objectively desirable", but surely the existence of objective desirability implies the existence of an objective (and therefore absolute) right or wrong?

Morality doesn't have to be a part of this. It is in my material interest to live in a communist system, so I support communism. It's in my material interest because I will work at what I want, not have to worry about money at all, etc, even though I have a good chance of succeeding in capitalism.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Morality doesn't have to be a part of this. It is in my material interest to live in a communist system, so I support communism. It's in my material interest because I will work at what I want, not have to worry about money at all, etc, even though I have a good chance of succeeding in capitalism.
Those who succeed in capitalism rarely have to worry about money.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Let's put it this way: If you were given the chance to be a sucessful CEO, would you do it? I wouldn't, despite it being in my "material interests." I can't endorse that way of life because I think it's wrong.

[Janus]

I believe in God which I believe is the objective source of our Morality
No, god was created to justify morality. The belief in a deity is based on faith and faith by its very nature can't be objective.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Isn't in our material interests to indulge some form of ethical practice?

I'm not for a moment suggesting we adopt religious morality, but secular ethics, there's somehting to be said for them. Minimising suffering and maximising happiness, for example. If that were an ethical law to abide by where possible, surely society and individuals would benefit?

-Alex

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I'm not for a moment suggesting we adopt religious morality, but secular ethics, there's somehting to be said for them. Minimising suffering and maximising happiness, for example. If that were an ethical law to abide by where possible, surely society and individuals would benefit?


Yes, that's what I try to espouse here too. I think believing in a God perpetuates paternalistic ideas, but belieiving in the promotion of human happiness as opposed to human suffering is something that was around even before Ugga began to chant at the sky.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes, that's what I try to espouse here too. I think believing in a God perpetuates paternalistic ideas, but belieiving in the promotion of human happiness as opposed to human suffering is something that was around even before Ugga began to chant at the sky.

My view exactly.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Aha. Normality in an ocean of disgustingly rational nihilists. :D

No offence nihlists, I'm just playing with you.

-Alex

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:34 pm

Morality doesn't have to be a part of this. It is in my material interest to live in a communist system, so I support communism. It's in my material interest because I will work at what I want, not have to worry about money at all, etc, even though I have a good chance of succeeding in capitalism.
Those who succeed in capitalism rarely have to worry about money.
Taxes? Annoying dumbasses sucking up to you? Shitty products?
yeah.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No. Mansions, women, servants, luxurious surroundings, and abundance of fine food and drink etc. etc. etc.

Are you really telling me that Bill Gates and Hugh Hefner lead such horrible lives?

[gilhyle]

You write:

"Let's put it this way: If you were given the chance to be a sucessful CEO, would you do it? I wouldn't, despite it being in my "material interests." I can't endorse that way of life because I think it's wrong."

Marxism is not for the people who have that choice. Why do you think it is the role of Marxism to come up with some half baked ethical myth to save you from the personal choices you face, which are your business. What kind of arrogance reduces the theory of class struggle to your personal property or that of any individual ?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

So you're saying people who have a chance of succeeding under capitalism shouldn't be Marxists? How do you account for people who have a good chance of succeeding, or have already succeeded, under the current capitalist system, but still support Marxism or other forms of Communism? Do you believe that everyone should work to the best of their ability to assimilate into the system and succeed under capitalism, and that only those who fail in doing this should become Marxists? Furthermore, do you believe that people who have succeeded (or could potentially succeed) under capitalism should do everything in their ability to prevent the empowerment of the working class?

All this, and more, would happen if everyone acted based on what was best for their own material circumstances.

I believe I may have the chance to prosper under capitalism. Are you telling me that I don't have the right to be a Marxist? Are are you telling me that I'm not a Marxist, plain and simple? You talk about arrogance, and then make a definitive statement about who Marxism is and isn't for. Hypocrisy incarnate.

[RedLenin]

It is in my material interest to live in a communist system, so I support communism.
The problem with that is that most of us will not live to see communism. We will die either fighting for it or of old age, hopefully the former. Though it may theoretically "be in your material interests" this cannot be a motive for revolutionary activity. No one should have any illusions about living to see communism. We need to fight for the future of humanity, and this motive is an ethical one.

As I have said, marxism is a dialectical materialist science that analyses class struggle. However, the motive for revolutionary activity is ethical. If you are going to fight for the progress and liberation of humanity, you need to desire to see humanity progressed and liberated. This is ethical. It is simply not possible to seperate ethics from revolution.

[RevMARKSman]

The problem with that is that most of us will not live to see communism. We will die either fighting for it or of old age, hopefully the former.
They say that every generation, asshat.

Look, religion is in decline, imperialism is at full mast, people are getting disillusioned, and nearly every country has progressed from feudalism to capitalism. I'd say we'll have a revolution within the next 50-75 years, and I'll definitely be alive then.


Though it may theoretically "be in your material interests" this cannot be a motive for revolutionary activity. No one should have any illusions about living to see communism.

So make big sacrifices for the Party because our holding patte - er socialism might last a mite longer than planned, and you little bastards won't be there to see the end of it. :rolleyes:


It is simply not possible to seperate ethics from revolution.

I think I just did.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 18, 2007 07:19 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 18, 2007 07:19 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 07:55 pm
I believe in God which I believe is the objective source of our Morality
You can't even prove that god exists, so how can it be 'objective' [/b]
I'm not going to go into proving God exists, when I say objective I mean something not based on my own whims.


Look, religion is in decline, imperialism is at full mast, people are getting disillusioned, and nearly every country has progressed from feudalism to capitalism. I'd say we'll have a revolution within the next 50-75 years, and I'll definitely be alive then.

That is very very idealistic and dogmatic of you, your basically following the Dogma that after Capitalism society MUST move on to Socialism.

[RevMARKSman]

That is very very idealistic and dogmatic of you, your basically following the Dogma that after Capitalism society MUST move on to Socialism.
Idealistic? No, we'll have the material conditions for communism within the next few decades.

Dogmatic? No, just rather...materialist and Marxist. Willpower does not a revolution make.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:31 am
How do you account for people who have a good chance of succeeding, or have already succeeded, under the current capitalist system, but still support Marxism or other forms of Communism? ...... Are you telling me that I don't have the right to be a Marxist? Are are you telling me that I'm not a Marxist, plain and simple? You talk about arrogance, and then make a definitive statement about who Marxism is and isn't for. Hypocrisy incarnate.
My point is not about whether you are a marxist or not. That is an objectively testable proposition. My point is you dont have the right to turn a class theory into a personal philosophy and require it to be structured so as to justify your (or my) personal moral choices. My morality is a private matter, I dont demand that Marxism preach my morality to the whole class and ask them to share my values or swallow some spurious rationalisation/universalization of my values.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You're taking this off topic. My question was whether or not morality was an inherent part of Marxism, I wasn't talking about some kind of irrelevant, private morality. Now, you seem to be implying that Marxism is a completely objectively based ideology, based purely on logic, free from any moral or ethical code. However, think forward, to a "Marxist society". How will society (or the individual if you are so inclined) determine right from wrong?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:48 pm
think forward, to a "Marxist society". How will society (or the individual if you are so inclined) determine right from wrong?
Marxism is not the ideology of a communist society it is the theory of revolution in a capitalist society. I assume (though I hesitate to predict) that any society worthy of the name communist will have outgrown the need to appeal to spurious rationalisation or external authorities to ground its morals. those morals will be grounded in the institutional framework of the society, rather than in any idealising ideology.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But they will exist.

[hoopla]

My point is you dont have the right to turn a class theory into a personal philosophy and require it to be structured so as to justify your (or my) personal moral choices.'Right'? :P

Civil you mean, rather than moral? Because that seems like a category error, or a possible fallacy I haven't read through my notes yet (lazy I know): saying that theory A cannot do B, when B is neither deducible or not deducible from from A (as you actually admit in the above sentence).

[hoopla]

Personally I think i have the civil right to say whatever I like about Marx.

[hoopla]

I dunno I may as well ramble to myself...

Can 'ethical marxism' only be a metaphor? Is Marxism the sort of theory that cannot say anything about ethics? Well if it was it certainly couldn't state we don't have the moral right to use it as one! What other right do you mean, a civil right? Preposterous (sp?).

I suppose you could say that ethical marxism is not just a metaphor, and that ethical marxism consists in not deducing any further ethical propositions from marxism. But thats a very strong kind of nihilism I think.

And I am genuinely interested as to what force this lack of right has if not ethical or civil? I suppose you could say that your statement was not that of a marxist but a human, but in your statement you appeal to the cornerstones of marxism - "class struggle" "property" etc. So have you not simply inavlidated your own pronouncement?

[gilhyle]

I should make clear my distinction between 'morals' which are rules of thumb that people actually use to guide choices and 'ethics' which is the theorisation of a psotulated basis for moral choices to show how we must or should or do cleave to one or other set of moral choices because of some aspect of our human nature.