Evil
- This topic has 93 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well if the people of Flint have the moral right to clean drinking water why are they being poisoned? A sudden outburst of immorality?
JDW, neither I nor Robbo have said the case for socialism is purely a moral one. The comments you keep posting regarding this subject seem to imply that it's either one or the other. Capitalists and their political managers always use morality to back their corner, and we see countless examples where the same morality is cast aside or twisted to suit various actions. Capitalism is morally bankrupt. It can only add to back up our position. Many members already use it in their arguments, some probably without realising it. It's used on a regular basis in the Socialist Standard to add human, emotive, weight to many an article. Why pretend it's not?Yes morality is a fluid, awkward issue, it's part of what it is to belong to a highly social species. We are not automatons.
Framing Flint water supply poisoning in moral terms feeds into the matter as a moral aberration. As a Catholic, Michael Moore and even Pope Francis might see it this way (see his comments on capitalism in June 2014). We should be challenging this view when it is used to exclusion of others.
In the case of Flint, do we claim drinkable water as a right, as in eithera) consumer right, after all, Flint residents are paying for it and should be suing when they fail to receive what they have bought.orb) a right to exist since potable water is a necessity for all.The SPGB position has i think been that workers possess no rights, only the occasional privileges granted to us by the ruling class but isn't our propaganda about the free access to food clothing and shelter and in a sense a demand for those "rights" to be satisfied.Isn't a "right" couched in terms of morality.Our approach should be that as members of society we "deserve" sustainable drinkable water sources and that cost-cutting by capitalism fails to provide such. That it is interlinked to the fact that pollution of the water by industry and commerce has made a basic of life itself contaminated and unusable and that city authorities are declaring a new water network replacing the lead piping too expensive to do. Whereas in Scotland lead piping is now illegal and even in the house plumbing includes free replacement if lead exceeds a certain level but would supporting such a change for Flint city council to adopt be an act of reformism? Or back to position b).
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our approach should be that as members of society we "deserve" sustainable drinkable water sources and that cost-cutting by capitalism fails to provide such.We need water, fresh air and food to survive. Capitalism and propertied societies can talk about whether or not we have a right to them or deserve them. We don't care we need them and we propose taking them. Deserving or morality has little to do with it
jondwhite wrote:Well if the people of Flint have the moral right to clean drinking water why are they being poisoned? A sudden outburst of immorality?In a way, yes.If for example a person responsible for the safety and well being of others makes a decision they know will impact detrimentally on those under their care, then they are themselves responsible for their actions. I'm not aware of the defence, "It weren't my fault your honour, it was the system that made me do it, honest."
I don't see a problem on challenging them on 'their' moral grounds and throwing their fake morality back in their teeth. After all they claim they are 'public servants' with a 'duty of care' and other such nonsense.
jondwhite wrote:Another argument defending capitalism from its critics as 'evil' is that capitalism delivers growth and development (or even raises living standards). 'Ferraris for All' is a particularly memorable title of a recent book along these lines. We as socialists shouldn't fall prey to this argument from economic development and should do so by avoiding framing our argument in moral terms and make that point that if we can, then we will deliver 'Ferraris for all'.You cannot but frame the argument against capitalism in moral terms. It is unavoidable and inevitable. The very concept of "class exploitation" is a value laden term which denotes moral disapproval. The very process of class identification and forging class solidarity is in part a moral process becuase it is predicated on a concern for the wellbeing of fellow workers and a belief that they have value in themselves. This is what makes it a moral perspective – by definition. True, this is not conventional bourgeois morality but it is morality all the same – the proletarian morality that Engels and others were on about it. We should acknowledge and embrace such a thing, not pretend it doesnt exist. Human beings are, by nature, moral animals. Its part of what makes us human. It stems from the fact that we live in societies – that we are social creatures. Though I dont agree with his political philosophy, the 19th century sociologist, Emile Durkheim was surely right to say that all societies are in a sense moral constructions. Socialism will be no exception . And the ends and the means must harmonise. The movement to establish socialism must involve, amongst other things, the promotion of moral values that it would wish to see incarnated in a future socialist societySometimes I think the people who say socialism is not in part based a moral perspective dont really understand what morality is about at all. They think morality is something that is preached from a pulpit on Sundays. They confuse a particular instance of morality with morality itselfI repeat again – for socialists to argue that socialism is a simply a matter of self interest and nothing more is not only a profoundly anti social and anti socialist thing to say which elevates the individual above all else and regards all others outside of the individual as having no value in themselves, it also converges completely with, and reinforces, the model of society advanced by people like Adam Smith which entrenches "self interest" as the absolute and governing form of motivation. The only substantive difference between socialists who think like this and the free marketeers is that the former believe socialism rather than capitalism will deliver "ferraris for all" and to hell with environmental consequencesAfter all ,why should we care seeing as we are "amoral"?
robbo203 wrote:Human beings are, by nature, moral animals. Its part of what makes us human. It stems from the fact that we live in societies – that we are social creatures.A bold statement , cde. Which animals to you consider immoral or non moral and why?
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:Human beings are, by nature, moral animals. Its part of what makes us human. It stems from the fact that we live in societies – that we are social creatures.A bold statement , cde. Which animals to you consider immoral or non moral and why?
Slight difference between "immoral" and "non moral", Vin, since immorality presupposes a systen of moral values to begin with whereas non morality or amorality does not. Human behaviour has both moral and amoral components . And not just human behaviour. Some animal behaviour too – particularly in primates – is morally driven or at least exhibits the rudimentary building blocks of a proto-morality. Read Frans de Waal on the subject or check out this https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en
I have come across this argument before. It proves that animals have human traits, it does not prove a moral system. In fact it suggests the opposite . Animals show empathy, Humans show empathy. Which indicates to me that empathy is not moral but is felt by all animals. Do we believe that frogs, flies and cockcroaches are morally motivated in their actions?The research is flawed and therefore its conclusions are invalid. It begins on the assumption that caring and empathy are not traits shared by all animals but displays 'morality' then suprise suprise they discover that some animals show these 'moral' traits.No one is saying that 'caring' and 'empathy' has nothing to do with the struggle for a better world but as Marx wrote and I paraphrase:If we wait for justice to deliver a better society we will wait a very, very long time. Our case is based primarily on the material interests of our classAppeals to right and wrong or morality are a waste of our energies and will achieve nothing.Apart from pointing out capitalist hypocricy, that is
Vin, I agree that the traits suggesting empathy in certain animals has nothing to do with morality. Morality simply refers to a social code of conduct.Socialist morality would simply be a set of rules based around the need to curb what would be deemed anti-social behaviour.I've already asked, and received no replies as to whether or not it is acceptable to knowingly do harm to another person?The NERB has faced a moral issue quite recently. It is ridiculous to think such issues would not crop up within a socialist society. I'm sure there would be times whereby the community may feel deeply uncomfortable with the views of others in regards to certain issues.I think the anti-morality stance is rooted deeply within the rejection of religion.
SocialistPunk wrote:I've already asked, and received no replies as to whether or not it is acceptable to knowingly do harm to another person?Hi SPDoesn't that depend on cirumstances rather than morality. The problen with moral code is that it follows that there will be immorality. I may not reply tonite as I am off to a gig soonnot ignoring you all the best
If a community deems it to be morally unacceptable to do something, then to do it would be immoral. I'm not sure what the problem is, unless it's the religious idea of sin you are trying to bring into the discussion?
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin, I agree that the traits suggesting empathy in certain animals has nothing to do with morality. Morality simply refers to a social code of conduct.Socialist morality would simply be a set of rules based around the need to curb what would be deemed anti-social behaviour.Hmm, I wouldnt say empathy has nothing to do with morality, SP. It has something to do with morality just as recipocrity or notions of fairness has something to do wth morality as well. These things are the building blocks of a moral outlook and are presupposed by a moral outlook. Morality, as you say, is a set of rules – or expectations – governing behaviour, which rules can vary from one society to another and from one class to another.Ultuinately these rules ,or expectations, are framed with the interests and wellbeing of others in mind as opposed to just one 's own interests anbd wellbeing (which is a prudental rather than a moral concern). Socialism is necessarily both a prudentual and moral project becuase, as I have argued, you simply cannot get to socialism except on the basis of uniting with others – workers – whose interests and wellbeing are a concern to you as well as your own and becuase these other individuals are regarded by you as having value in themselves. That is to say, socialism necessarily involves an altruistic component Translating our altruistuic regard for fellow workers into a set of tacit rules or expectations is precisely what a socialist morality consists in and we cannot do without it as socialists even if some ous like to pretend it doesnt exist!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.