Leftist Morality: Simple Instinct and Emotion?

[Feslin]

Well, this is really a question to all the leftists here. What is morality to you? What makes an action wrong? How did you come to this conclusion?

I'm asking to confirm my belief that leftists never go to the basis and ask themselves, "What makes something wrong?" but rather make moral decisions based on things outside of their control like instinct and upbringing.

[Demogorgon]

People don't always like that question here. And when it is gone into on the philosophy forum the same arguments you get elsewhere, leftists evidently do not have any universally agreed on moral code.

Most people incidentally will tend to regard things as right and wrong based on upbringing and instinct though. You don't need to think deeply about murder to be sure murder is wrong for example.

[Feslin]

People don't always like that question here.


I don't even expect them to like me, much more my questions. Oh well.


And when it is gone into on the philosophy forum the same arguments you get elsewhere, leftists evidently do not have any universally agreed on moral code.

Right, but I'm not asking for the universal leftist moral code, I'm asking for any individual leftist who's willing to answer me to tell me how he arrived at it, and what it is.



Most people incidentally will tend to regard things as right and wrong based on upbringing and instinct though.


I was hoping the people on this forum wouldn't be like most people. The fact that the people here consider themselves somewhat intellectually elite from what I've seen interests me. Not that I agree with them, at all.



You don't need to think deeply about murder to be sure murder is wrong for example.


But that's the problem, people are unwilling to explain WHY it's wrong. We just accept it's wrong based on things not within our real control, like upbringing and instinct.

Should we not take it a step higher? Should we not take that thing that makes us, as humans, unique (reason) and use it to find the truth?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's half 2 here and I haven't given this much thought, but I'd like to throw it out there that morality should be based on rights and their protection.

I too am somewhat of a libertarian, albeit only in the social sense ;)


But that's the problem, people are unwilling to explain WHY it's wrong. We just accept it's wrong based on things not within our real control, like upbringing and instinct.

Actually it's wrong because it violates the right of the victim to life and to bodily integrity.

[RevMARKSman]

I'm about to give you the answer you want, which is morality is made up. Nothing is objectively wrong, and even "wrong" as an adjective has no real meaning other than "something I don't want you to do."

Consider your "belief" shattered.

[Feslin]

It's half 2 here and I haven't given this much thought, but I'd like to throw it out there that morality should be based on rights and their protection.

I too am somewhat of a libertarian, albeit only in the social sense ;)


Actually it's wrong because it violates the right of the victim to life and to bodily integrity.

And your idea of "rights" (which I believe to be an entirely false idea) is what? Arbitrary? Where do these "rights" come from? Who defines what these "rights" are? In other words, what makes some things a right, and others not?

"Rights" seem like another excuse, used by the "right" and left, to never explain what makes an action wrong, but to simply say "This action is wrong because it offends my emotions/instincts/what-mommy-and-daddy-or-God-or-the-government-told-me-was-right."

[mikelepore]

I believe in what is called the psychological theory of morality. For example, when I say it would be morally wrong for someone to massacre my family, precisely what I mean by that is I feel an extremely strong preference that no one may massacre my family. However, the killer thinks it's justified behavior to do it, which means that he doesn't feel the same desire that I do. These are descriptions of mental states.

Beyond that, I agree with Bentham and Mill -- goodness is the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

You asked for replies from leftists. I'm an old dude who became a Marxist in the 1960s.

[Feslin]

I'm about to give you the answer you want, which is morality is made up. Nothing is objectively wrong, and even "wrong" as an adjective has no real meaning other than "something I don't want you to do."

I disagree with you entirely, and I have two roads of debate I could go down, here's my choice:

Fine, let's say you're right. Amoralism. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Any action is acceptable. Slave labor... not wrong?

That doesn't sound like it would lead to any form of leftism I know of.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And your idea of "rights" (which I believe to be an entirely false idea) is what? Arbitrary? Where do these "rights" come from? Who defines what these "rights" are? In other words, what makes some things a right, and others not?

"Rights" seem like another excuse, used by the "right" and left, to never explain what makes an action wrong, but to simply say "This action is wrong because it offends my emotions/instincts/what-mommy-and-daddy-or-God-or-the-government-told-me-was-right."

Well first of all it should be noted that I agree with both you and RevMARKSman in that morality is a man-made concept, and by definition is without a basis in objective reality. That, however, is simply using semantics to sidestep the real question, which is how or why people come to oppose, dislike or even fear certain acts which may not even directly affect them.

As regards my idea of what rights should be, I think we should start from a presumption of absolute freedom and work back from there. Assume that every human being has the right to do whatever the hell they want, and act to infringe on that right only in order to prevent the individual infringing on another's rights in an even greater way. Thus the maximum amount of liberty is ensured for society as a whole.

[Demogorgon]

Should we not take it a step higher? Should we not take that thing that makes us, as humans, unique (reason) and use it to find the truth?
And what "truth" do you suppose we will find? You want to treat morality as an abstract it seems, and you aren't going to get far their.

What do I base my morality on? Different things. I believe in human emancipation for example which leads to certain conclusions. In my daily life I do my best to treat other people as I would want to be treated myself. I try to treat people with respect to their human dignity.

On a larger scale some may argue a degree of sympathy to Utilitarian values. They have their problems, but with the right tweaking there may be something in it. More than there would be in trying to look for natural rights as I suspect you are going to ask us to do.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I disagree with you entirely, and I have two roads of debate I could go down, here's my choice:

Fine, let's say you're right. Amoralism. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Any action is acceptable. Slave labor... not wrong?

That doesn't sound like it would lead to any form of leftism I know of.
You fail already. Accepting an action and considering it to be "right" or "wrong" from any absolute, objective viewpoint are two overwhelmingly different things.

[Feslin]

Well first of all it should be noted that I agree with both you and RevMARKSman in that morality is a man-made concept, and by definition is without a basis in objective reality.

I don't believe it has no basis in objective reality. As heart-warming as it would be, I don't believe we agree.


As regards my idea of what rights should be, I think we should start from a presumption of absolute freedom and work back from there.

Why? Why should I choose that presumption? I could also presume that the Bible is the absolute infallible word of God, but it's just a presumption.

[Feslin]

You fail already. Accepting an action and considering it to be "right" or "wrong" from any absolute, objective viewpoint are two overwhelmingly different things.

Not in the sense in which I'm using the word "accept".

But let's not say that. I don't want a semantic debate.



If there is no objective morality, there is not really any morality. And amorality equals, what? Not even anarchy. It doesn't lead to any political philosophy, much more the heart-warming feel-good leftist kind.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't believe it has no basis in objective reality. As heart-warming as it would be, I don't believe we agree.

Sorry, the idea of an absolute morality has no basis in objective reality. The idea of subjective morality of course has a basis in objective reality, since we all exist in this objective reality but occupy different parts of it.


Why? Why should I choose that presumption? I could also presume that the Bible is the absolute infallible word of God, but it's just a presumption.
Well if you insist on questioning everything well then this is probably the best presumption to make, as it is not a positive presumption but a negative one. If you remove any system of law, order or control, any artificial or externally imposed inhibition, this presumption is what you end up with. It only seems to be a positive presumption because you're so used to thinking of rights as something handed down from above, and you presume (like most do) that without rights being specifically granted by authority humans have no rights. This assumes that domination, rather than freedom, is natural. Yet, freedom allows for the maximum utilisation of man's capacity, reason, which you have claimed that we should use. Domination, quite obviously, does not.

[Feslin]

Sorry, the idea of an absolute morality has no basis in objective reality. The idea of subjective morality of course has a basis in objective reality, since we all exist in this objective reality but occupy different parts of it.

Subjective morality is amorality.

That leaves you with two choices. Amorality, or morality. I believe in morality. I believe there is a right and wrong, and regardless of our individual perceptions of it, it is there.


Well if you insist on questioning everything well then this is probably the best presumption to make, as it is not a positive presumption but a negative one. If you remove any system of law, order or control, any artificial or externally imposed inhibition, this presumption is what you end up with. It only seems to be a positive presumption because you're so used to thinking of rights as something handed down from above, and you presume (like most do) that without rights being specifically granted by authority humans have no rights. This assumes that domination, rather than freedom, is natural. Yet, freedom allows for the maximum utilisation of man's capacity, reason, which you have claimed that we should use. Domination, quite obviously, does not.

It's not about removing control. Control rarely has basis in morality. It's about removing morality.

When you remove morality, what are you left with? I say it again, not even anarchy. You are left with nothing more than amorality. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Fascism is not wrong, communism is not right.



So what is it, amorality, or objective morality?

[Demogorgon]

Why don't you tell us what you think the basis of your objective morality is. A debate on the nature of morality is pointless. Why not enlighten us as to what you think a good basis of morality should be, and see if we agree?

[Feslin]

Why don't you tell us what you think the basis of your objective morality is. A debate on the nature of morality is pointless. Why not enlighten us as to what you think a good basis of morality should be, and see if we agree?

Because that's not as interesting.

Not a single person here has really answered me. I came here because I thought it would be interesting to explore your thought processes, not because I want to enlighten you.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Subjective morality is amorality.

That leaves you with two choices. Amorality, or morality. I believe in morality. I believe there is a right and wrong, and regardless of our individual perceptions of it, it is there.

Subjective morality is not amorality. All morality is subjective, unless you are a theist, in which case we will have to agree to disagree because I'm not.


It's not about removing control. Control rarely has basis in morality. It's about removing morality.
You claim that morality is about right and wrong. The law is about preventing wrong and, to a lesser extents, promoting right. To do this the law needs a certain amount of control over its subjects. This control, therefore, is given validity by the existence of right and wrong - in your words, morality.



When you remove morality, what are you left with? I say it again, not even anarchy. You are left with nothing more than amorality. Nothing is wrong, nothing is right. Fascism is not wrong, communism is not right.
Actually some things are wrong. 2+2=5 is wrong, regardless of your subjective opinion (assuming you're working in base 10 maths). Similarly, 2+2=4 is right.

Apart from that though, the absence of morality does not mean that things cannot be given value judgements. Someone can accept Communism and reject Fascism without reference to a higher system of absolute right or wrong, because the former would lead to a better society than the latter. Alternatively, there is always the method I put forward whereby value judgements can be made with reference to freedom and proportionality (though you could call this an objective form of morality, I suppose).

[Feslin]

Subjective morality is not amorality.

Yes it is, something subjective is not something based in reality.

Something isn't something because you believe it's something. Something is something because it's something.


All morality is subjective, unless you are a theist, in which case we will have to agree to disagree because I'm not.

I'm not a theist.


You claim that morality is about right and wrong.

Right.


The law is about preventing wrong and, to a lesser extents, promoting right.

I don't really believe in "right", just the absense of wrong. But that's what the law should be, yes. It never will be, however. Law will be about people trying to push eachother around by any means necessary to get somewhere in life.

People will always do that.


To do this the law needs a certain amount of control over its subjects. This control, therefore, is given validity by the existence of right and wrong - in your words, morality.

Once again, it's not about control. I don't care about the control, just morality.


Actually some things are wrong. 2+2=5 is wrong, regardless of your subjective opinion (assuming you're working in base 10 maths). Similarly, 2+2=4 is right.

That's "wrong" in an entirely different sense.


Apart from that though, the absence of morality does not mean that things cannot be given value judgements.

That doesn't mean much.


Someone can accept Communism and reject Fascism without reference to a higher system of absolute right or wrong, because the former would lead to a better society than the latter.

Now "better", there's something entirely subjective.


Alternatively, there is always the method I put forward whereby value judgements can be made with reference to freedom and proportionality (though you could call this an objective form of morality, I suppose).

So, which is it that you believe? It's much more interesting to debate someone when I know where they're coming from.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes it is, something subjective is not something based in reality.
Really? What about opinions, are they not based in reality? Say you want to kill me in order to take my money, and someone comes along and stops you. In your opinion that person's intervention was a bad thing, in my opinion it was a good thing, because of factors based in reality.


Once again, it's not about control. I don't care about the control, just morality.
Your logic is circular, I have just shown you how control is relevant to the issue of morality and you have rejected my argument by claiming that control is irrelevant.

On top of my previous claims, control is relevant because it is the infringement on the freedom of the individual. This prevents the person from exercising his or her freedom, and from living his or her life fully. Control, therefore, should be limited as much as possible. Perhaps I have been straying though, as perhaps you are not interested in the enforcement of a morality but purely of its justification (which seems rather absurd in my opinion).

In this case, just supplement "control" with "moral judgement". But it is important to note then that morality is related to its potential practical implications. If you disapprove of something on moral grounds presumably you would not like to see more of it happening in society.

Either way, my original point still stands.


That doesn't mean much.
Actually it means a hell of a lot, considering that morality is really just a system of value judgements.


Now "better", there's something entirely subjective.

Not from the maximum liberty point of view, which I have repeated several times now and you have failed to address.


So, which is it that you believe? It's much more interesting to debate someone when I know where they're coming from.
I believe in the maximum liberty approach. Whether or not that can be classified as an objective form of morality is a semantic debate.

[Feslin]

Really? What about opinions, are they not based in reality?

Opinions are individual perceptions.

Allow me to re-word what I said. Subjective morality means that there is no morality, morality does not exist, but rather, we simply believe it to exist.


Your logic is circular, I have just shown you how control is relevant to the issue of morality and you have rejected my argument by claiming that control is irrelevant.

Control is philosophically irrelevent in this debate.

Removing morality is not removing control, and removing control is not removing morality.

Again, in this debate, it's irrelevent.


On top of my previous claims, control is relevant because it is the infringement on the freedom of the individual. This prevents the person from exercising his or her freedom, and from living his or her life fully. Control, therefore, should be limited as much as possible. Perhaps I have been straying though, as perhaps you are not interested in the enforcement of a morality but purely of its justification (which seems rather absurd in my opinion).

You're right, I'm not interested at all in the enforcement of morality, because I don't believe there will EVER be a libertarian government, much more a libertarian society.

So, as you pointed out, I just don't care.



In this case, just supplement "control" with "moral judgement". But it is important to note then that morality is related to its potential practical implications. If you disapprove of something on moral grounds presumably you would not like to see more of it happening in society.

Either way, my original point still stands.


Which original point still stands? You have lots of original points this can be traced back to.


Actually it means a hell of a lot, considering that morality is really just a system of value judgements.

But in the absence of morality, value judgements are irrelevent in this debate.


Not from the maximum liberty point of view, which I have repeated several times now and you have failed to address.

I've addressed it, and I've asked you, why do you have this presumption?


I believe in the maximum liberty approach. Whether or not that can be classified as an objective form of morality is a semantic debate.

It's not just semantic, it's important.

And yes, it is an objective form of morality. Now for the next important question, what leads you to it: Why?

[Dean]

Well, this is really a question to all the leftists here. What is morality to you? What makes an action wrong? How did you come to this conclusion?

I'm asking to confirm my belief that leftists never go to the basis and ask themselves, "What makes something wrong?" but rather make moral decisions based on things outside of their control like instinct and upbringing.

Yes, leftists make a point to judge moral decisions based on the conditions a person is in. This is only logical; if it is wrong to kill a man, at what point do you start ot make concessions? When he takes a few freedoms? locks you up? Threatens your life?

I have a somewhat unique view, which involves two codes. One is a purist one: it is never good for someone to lose his life, so it is always wrong to take a life. It is always wrong to imprison someone, etc. These can be viewed as guiding principles, not ultimatums but desirable conditions.

The other is a contextual one, which views the conditions of a person's existance, their will and capabilities to determine what is right and best. These codes, which are fluid and none set in stone, are simply the means by which one applies the aforementioned ultimate ideals. Locking up a habitual murderer is often the most rational choice. It is wrong; one's freedom is revoked, so the ultimate good of total, equal freedom is not attained. However, his capability to take freedom from others is also taken.

The second set is much more complicated, because it involves an imperfect, changable system which relates directly to the conditions of a person's life, not just what is ideal.

Peace is described as "lack of opposition to socialism" by Marx. Peace on earth is an ultimate maxim, desirable, but not necessarily directly attainable (i.e. a violent revolution resulting in socialism still is marred by the fact that it required a war).

[Feslin]

Yes, leftists make a point to judge moral decisions based on the conditions a person is in. This is only logical; if it is wrong to kill a man, at what point do you start ot make concessions? When he takes a few freedoms? locks you up? Threatens your life?

I have a somewhat unique view, which involves two codes. One is a purist one: it is never good for someone to lose his life, so it is always wrong to take a life. It is always wrong to imprison someone, etc. These can be viewed as guiding principles, not ultimatums but desirable conditions.

The other is a contextual one, which views the conditions of a person's existance, their will and capabilities to determine what is right and best. These codes, which are fluid and none set in stone, are simply the means by which one applies the aforementioned ultimate ideals. Locking up a habitual murderer is often the most rational choice. It is wrong; one's freedom is revoked, so the ultimate good of total, equal freedom is not attained. However, his capability to take freedom from others is also taken.

The second set is much more complicated, because it involves an imperfect, changable system which relates directly to the conditions of a person's life, not just what is ideal.

Peace is described as "lack of opposition to socialism" by Marx. Peace on earth is an ultimate maxim, desirable, but not necessarily directly attainable (i.e. a violent revolution resulting in socialism still is marred by the fact that it required a war).

So... you never answered the most important question.

What makes an action wrong?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Allow me to re-word what I said. Subjective morality means that there is no morality, morality does not exist, but rather, we simply believe it to exist.Wrong. Morality is the belief in right and wrong. As long as someone believes in right and wrong, morality exists.


Which original point still stands? You have lots of original points this can be traced back to.
My point that morality should be based on the maximization of liberty.


But in the absence of morality, value judgements are irrelevent in this debate.Not entirely, because you argued for the existence of an objective morality by saying that in its absence we could not make value judgements (fascism could not be bad, communism could not be good). I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.


I've addressed it, and I've asked you, why do you have this presumption?I've told you already:
Well if you insist on questioning everything well then this is probably the best presumption to make, as it is not a positive presumption but a negative one. If you remove any system of law, order or control, any artificial or externally imposed inhibition, this presumption is what you end up with. It only seems to be a positive presumption because you're so used to thinking of rights as something handed down from above, and you presume (like most do) that without rights being specifically granted by authority humans have no rights. This assumes that domination, rather than freedom, is natural. Yet, freedom allows for the maximum utilisation of man's capacity, reason, which you have claimed that we should use. Domination, quite obviously, does not.

The last time I said this you attempted to go off-topic by talking about control. However, you also rightfully pointed out that control was not the issue. The point is that maximization of freedom is a valid goal because it allows man to make maximum use of his faculty, reason. Thus seeking to unduly violate man's freedom is wrong. Right is, as you claim, the absence of wrong.


And yes, it is an objective form of morality. Now for the next important question, what leads you to it: Why? See above.

I am off to bed, we shall resume this debate tomorrow.

[Feslin]

Wrong. Morality is the belief in right and wrong. As long as someone believes in right and wrong, morality exists.

Wrong, morality is not just a belief.

If one believes morality only exists in our minds, one believes morality doesn't really exist.


Not entirely, because you argued for the existence of an objective morality by saying that in its absence we could not make value judgements (fascism could not be bad, communism could not be good). I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

I'm saying "good" and "bad" in the sense of morality (the right and wrong thing to do). It is, of course, the case.


The last time I said this you attempted to go off-topic by talking about control. However, you also rightfully pointed out that control was not the issue. The point is that maximization of freedom is a valid goal because it allows man to make maximum use of his faculty, reason. Thus seeking to unduly violate man's freedom is wrong. Right is, as you claim, the absence of wrong.

So, you think something is wrong if it keeps a person from using reason?

[RNK]

What makes an action wrong?

The relation of the negative impact of the act to the conditions prevailing the act to the proportionate reaction of any instigation.

[Saorsa]

Leftist morality is simple. If an action will advance the cause of the working masses, the cause of the communist revolution, it is good, moral and should be done. If an action will have a negative effect on and retard the cause of the working masses, the cause of the communist revolution, it is bad, immoral and should not be done. That simple.

There is no objective moral authority in the universe, that exists in a vacuum, completely independent of humanity and the class struggle. If you start saying there is, you're moving onto religious ground.

Morality must be tied to a vision of a better world, a communist future, and it is ultimately determined by whether or not it has a positive or a negative effect on the struggle to achieve such a world.

Some people have claimed that murder is inherently immoral. Wrong. Murder (by which I assume you mean the killing of an innocent person, not a legitimate killing such as that of a policeman or a soldier) is wrong because if carried out by a communist, it will alienate the masses and destroy their support for you and your cause.

If carried out by a non-communist, e.g. a man murdering his wife, it still has a harmful effect on the struggle for communism because it leads to an atmosphere of fear, tension, paranoia and hostility towards others, and it prevents both the victim and the murderer from playing their part in the struggle for communism.

Good for the revolution - moral. Bad for the revolution - immoral. That simple.

[RevMARKSman]

I'm saying "good" and "bad" in the sense of morality (the right and wrong thing to do). It is, of course, the case.

That is overwhelmingly not the case because "value judgments" are entirely subjective and pretty much mean "what I like" and "what I don't like." I don't believe in morality, but I can still decide what to eat for dinner because I enjoy certain foods more than others. That's a value judgment. I want communism because I think it will lead to better material conditions for me.

[Feslin]

The relation of the negative impact of the act to the conditions prevailing the act to the proportionate reaction of any instigation.

"Negative impact" is entirely subjective, as proven by the fact that you and many "rightists" would agree on this form of morality, yet would disagree as to what a "negative impact" might be.


Leftist morality is simple. If an action will advance the cause of the working masses, the cause of the communist revolution, it is good, moral and should be done. If an action will have a negative effect on and retard the cause of the working masses, the cause of the communist revolution, it is bad, immoral and should not be done. That simple.

There is no objective moral authority in the universe, that exists in a vacuum, completely independent of humanity and the class struggle. If you start saying there is, you're moving onto religious ground.

Morality must be tied to a vision of a better world, a communist future, and it is ultimately determined by whether or not it has a positive or a negative effect on the struggle to achieve such a world.

Some people have claimed that murder is inherently immoral. Wrong. Murder (by which I assume you mean the killing of an innocent person, not a legitimate killing such as that of a policeman or a soldier) is wrong because if carried out by a communist, it will alienate the masses and destroy their support for you and your cause.

If carried out by a non-communist, e.g. a man murdering his wife, it still has a harmful effect on the struggle for communism because it leads to an atmosphere of fear, tension, paranoia and hostility towards others, and it prevents both the victim and the murderer from playing their part in the struggle for communism.

Good for the revolution - moral. Bad for the revolution - immoral. That simple.

And after the revolution? Once the world was in your oh-so-happy-paradise-of-ultimate-goodness, then what? Would murder be allowed because it no longer impedes the communist cause?

Let's say that I was a rightist, and a I murdered someone, could that be seen as a moral action because I'm making the commies look good in the public eye?



That is overwhelmingly not the case because "value judgments" are entirely subjective and pretty much mean "what I like" and "what I don't like." I don't believe in morality, but I can still decide what to eat for dinner because I enjoy certain foods more than others. That's a value judgment. I want communism because I think it will lead to better material conditions for me.


Again, I'm simply talking about morality. I realize how value judgements work, I make most of my decisions based on value judgements outside of morality.

But here and now, that's irrelevent.

EDIT: Oops, made a mistake in my post that made it pretty incoherent, apologies to anyone who hit the reply/quote button before I fixed this.

[RevMARKSman]

Okay, so, you no longer have a point. Your argument consists of: "Without morality, you can't ____ (fill in the blank with something that's not "make value judgments," "have political views" or "be a leftist" - those have all been debunked)."

[Individuality]

Well, this is really a question to all the leftists here. What is morality to you? What makes an action wrong? How did you come to this conclusion?

I'm asking to confirm my belief that leftists never go to the basis and ask themselves, "What makes something wrong?" but rather make moral decisions based on things outside of their control like instinct and upbringing.
Communists don't believe in morality or a persons rights. But they do believe in their morality and their view on a persons rights.

The also believe that people are allowed to be individuals, but they also must surrender to the will(and need) of society.

They also in an anarchy state, they don't believe in government, but they believe in a government.

It's an amazing philosophy. I've learned so much since I got here.

[Feslin]

Okay, so, you no longer have a point. Your argument consists of: "Without morality, you can't ____ (fill in the blank with something that's not "make value judgments," "have political views" or "be a leftist" - those have all been debunked)."

Fine, I admit that I was wrong about the political views and leftist thing, as absurd as it is, you can have be a commie without morality.

But, this also challenges the "capitalists/nazis/corporations are evil" I've always heard from the leftists.

Without morality, these judgements are entirely subjective. The ideas of "good", "bad", "better", and "worse" are nothing BUT subjective.

[Dimentio]

Well, this is really a question to all the leftists here. What is morality to you? What makes an action wrong? How did you come to this conclusion?

I'm asking to confirm my belief that leftists never go to the basis and ask themselves, "What makes something wrong?" but rather make moral decisions based on things outside of their control like instinct and upbringing.

Right and wrong are connected to the productive forces of a given community. Such things as predictability and the ability to plan is what creates laws, or clans.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If one believes morality only exists in our minds, one believes morality doesn't really exist.
It may not exist as a material, tangible thing but it still exists. Much like memories exist; you cannot deny that you remember what happened yesterday, yet that memory only exists in your mind. You cannot feel or touch the past, you can onlt think about it.


I'm saying "good" and "bad" in the sense of morality (the right and wrong thing to do). It is, of course, the case.

But you claim that there is such thing as an objective morality. You also claim that if one does not believe in this objective morality, then they do not believe morality to exist. However, many people can and do make value judgement on whether or not something is right or wrong without reference to your objective morality, and these value judgements often contradict your objective morality. Therefore it is clearly not the case.


So, you think something is wrong if it keeps a person from using reason?
Unduly, yes. Reason is what separates human society from animal society, it has also been the main force for the objective improvement of human society throughout history.

[Lynx]

I do not care what happens to others.
I do not care what happens to me.

[RevMARKSman]

Communists don't believe in morality or a persons rights. But they do believe in their morality and their view on a persons rights.

The also believe that people are allowed to be individuals, but they also must surrender to the will(and need) of society.

They also in an anarchy state, they don't believe in government, but they believe in a government.

It's an amazing philosophy. I've learned so much since I got here.

Yes, we believe all those contradictory things because one communist speaks for them all...

[Jazzratt]

Communists don't believe in morality or a persons rights. But they do believe in their morality and their view on a persons rights.

The also believe that people are allowed to be individuals, but they also must surrender to the will(and need) of society.

They also in an anarchy state, they don't believe in government, but they believe in a government.

It's an amazing philosophy. I've learned so much since I got here.

If you weren't dropped on your head as child perhaps you would have learned that not all leftists have the same views. There are anarchist leftists and authoritarian leftists, there are leftists that accept objective morality and leftists that believe morals to be another type of social control, there are as many flavours of lefty as there are of anything else you drooling fuckwit.

[Feslin]

It may not exist as a material, tangible thing but it still exists. Much like memories exist; you cannot deny that you remember what happened yesterday, yet that memory only exists in your mind. You cannot feel or touch the past, you can onlt think about it.

I won't doubt that memories exist, but saying that morality is subjective is saying there is no REAL morality.

Ergo, it doesn't REALLY exist, but is of our imagination.


You also claim that if one does not believe in this objective morality, then they do not believe morality to exist.

No, you can falsely believe that morality exists if it's subjective.

But reason says that if morality is subjective, it is simply our imagination.


However, many people can and do make value judgement on whether or not something is right or wrong without reference to your objective morality, and these value judgements often contradict your objective morality. Therefore it is clearly not the case.

How can you make judgements of right and wrong (moral judgements) without believing morality is a real thing?


Unduly, yes. Reason is what separates human society from animal society, it has also been the main force for the objective improvement of human society throughout history.

So... killing ANY individual is wrong, regardless of the circumstances?

What if you had the choice between all humanity being in an eternal state of pleasure without reason or humanity being able to exercise reason, would choosing the eternal state of pleasure without reason be immoral?

[Dean]

So... you never answered the most important question.

What makes an action wrong?

This is a cop-out, for one, but for another, I already explained the method I used to make such distinctions. For me, the only thing that is never wrong is love, and by extension communism. Few other things are universally right or wrong, and such hypotheticals usually need such excessiveness that they define their own existance more than their existance could modify their rightness / wrongness.

[Feslin]

This is a cop-out, for one, but for another, I already explained the method I used to make such distinctions. For me, the only thing that is never wrong is love, and by extension communism. Few other things are universally right or wrong, and such hypotheticals usually need such excessiveness that they define their own existance more than their existance could modify their rightness / wrongness.

I'm not asking what actions are wrong, I'm asking what makes an action wrong.

If you can't tell me what makes an action wrong, it's foolish for you to judge whether or not something is wrong.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I won't doubt that memories exist, but saying that morality is subjective is saying there is no REAL morality.
And that's like saying that there are no real opinions, which is absurd. Again, you are confusing material existence with non-material existence. Some things exist merely as systems and constructs of thoughts and words.


No, you can falsely believe that morality exists if it's subjective.
Why is it that its subjectivity renders it non-existent? How does objective morality exist in any sense in which subjective morality does not?


How can you make judgements of right and wrong (moral judgements) without believing morality is a real thing?
By "morality" here do you mean subjective morality or objective morality?


So... killing ANY individual is wrong, regardless of the circumstances?
I fail to see how you came to that conclusion based on the maximum liberty theory.



What if you had the choice between all humanity being in an eternal state of pleasure without reason or humanity being able to exercise reason, would choosing the eternal state of pleasure without reason be immoral?
That may seem quite absurd. However, morality has a basis in objective reality and it is unfair and disingenuous to use a system of morality which has its basis in objective reality to analyse an impossible and unrealistic situation.

[Feslin]

And that's like saying that there are no real opinions, which is absurd. Again, you are confusing material existence with non-material existence. Some things exist merely as systems and constructs of thoughts and words.

And yet morality, if merely a thought, doesn't really exist, but is just our imagination.


Why is it that its subjectivity renders it non-existent? How does objective morality exist in any sense in which subjective morality does not?

Because if you accept that morality exists objectively, you agree that it is something that really exists, regardless of human perception of it.


By "morality" here do you mean subjective morality or objective morality?

I mean morality.


I fail to see how you came to that conclusion based on the maximum liberty theory.

I came to it based on the "whatever keeps humans from reasoning is immoral" idea.


That may seem quite absurd. However, morality has a basis in objective reality and it is unfair and disingenuous to use a system of morality which has its basis in objective reality to analyse an impossible and unrealistic situation.

It's not an unrealistic situation.

Let's be honest, your technocratic buddies. Some of them, they got it right.

Eventually, humans will just be hooked up to machines. What these machines do is really up to the humans of the time, I suppose. I imagine either everyone would be the all-powerful-being of their own simulated universe, or mindless, endless, absolute pleasure.

Now, if you had a choice between mindless, endless, absolute pleasure or reasoning humans living life the hard way, which would you choose? The moral way, or the mindless-endless-absolute-pleasure way?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And yet morality, if merely a thought, doesn't really exist, but is just our imagination.
But our imagination exists, as do thoughts and ideas.


Because if you accept that morality exists objectively, you agree that it is something that really exists, regardless of human perception of it.
But it still exists only as thought, just like subjective morality.


I mean morality.
So you mean both, then? You must be more clear. You seem to have a problem accepting subjective morality as real morality so you must clarify before I can answer the question.


I came to it based on the "whatever keeps humans from reasoning is immoral" idea.
It is not simply about reason; it is about freedom to reason. Freedom is what should be defended by morality, but this assertion is given validity by the fact that without freedom we cannot reason or apply reason and thus the distinction between humans and animals has been abolished and human "society" effectively ceases to exist.

Either way, your inference is flawed. It is morally permissible to kill a person if doing so would be the least oppressive way to prevent an even greater violation of human rights or freedom.


It's not an unrealistic situation.

Let's be honest, your technocratic buddies. Some of them, they got it right.

Eventually, humans will just be hooked up to machines. What these machines do is really up to the humans of the time, I suppose. I imagine either everyone would be the all-powerful-being of their own simulated universe, or mindless, endless, absolute pleasure.

Now, if you had a choice between mindless, endless, absolute pleasure or reasoning humans living life the hard way, which would you choose? The moral way, or the mindless-endless-absolute-pleasure way?
That is a rather far-fetched and baseless theory. I think the idea that technocrats would hook us all up to some machine which destroys our humanity in exchange for eternal mindless pleasure is quite absurd.

I would oppose any attempt to implement this mindless pleasure machine on unwilling individuals. If a human chooses (in sound mind and body, and of their own accord) to relinquish their freedom to such a machine then that's fine by me. But any attempt to remove that freedom without their consent is immoral.

[Dean]

I'm not asking what actions are wrong, I'm asking what makes an action wrong.

If you can't tell me what makes an action wrong, it's foolish for you to judge whether or not something is wrong.

I already did. How many times do I have to tell you? "All actions must be judged right or wrong by judging their conditions, coupled with its relation to communism and its precursor, love."

I judge things in relation to their conditions. Give me a distinct hypothetical, I can judge its rightness or wrongness. You seem to be fishing for some concrete, wholistic principle to "disprove" - I have only given two, and I don't plan on giving any more right now because I can't think of any more that I believe in.