Evil

[Anonymous]

If a better world could be achieved via a set of moral rules the the christians would have established heaven on earth thousands of years ago.We have had our bellyful of morality. What we want now is a belly full of food,  homes to live in and peace instead of  mass murder and starvation backed by 'moral'  justification.We will have to agree to differ cdes 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Morality, as you say, is a set of rules – or expectations – governing behaviour, 

 Surely that remains to be proven and not simply assertedI suggest: ‘Morality is a set of rules governing propertied society imposed upon us whether  we like it or not’We and other animals are naturally caring and compassionate and we don’t need an imposed morality as the early capitalist philosophers  would have us  believe.There was never a Hobbesian  ‘state of nature’. Such concepts were invented to justify the state and the imposition of a morality by the developing capitalist class.Without morality and the state we would have  ‘a war of all against all’. Implying that humans are not social animals with compassion and empathy and the capitalist state is inevitable We will get along fine without 'morality'

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Morality, as you say, is a set of rules – or expectations – governing behaviour, 

 Surely that remains to be proven and not simply assertedI suggest: ‘Morality is a set of rules governing propertied society imposed upon us whether  we like it or not’We and other animals are naturally caring and compassionate and we don’t need an imposed morality as the early capitalist philosophers  would have us  believe.There was never a Hobbesian  ‘state of nature’. Such concepts were invented to justify the state and the imposition of a morality by the developing capitalist class.Without morality and the state we would have  ‘a war of all against all’. Implying that humans are not social animals with compassion and empathy and the capitalist state is inevitable We will get along fine without 'morality'

  Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your whole line of argument, Vin. I think what you are doing is conflating one particular form of morality, based on private property, with morality per se.  Morality predates property society and indeed as I indicated earlier, a kind of proto-morality can even be found among some species of animals – in particular the primates – where there is substantial evidence of rule governed behaviour being reinforced by sanctions and rewards. Not only are you confusing one form of morality with morality itself but you are also confusing it with the actions of the state.  You are arguing that morality is some kind of ideological form or contrivance invented by the state to enforce compliance which is actually a rather idealist way of looking at the subject – that morality was somehow magicked into existence to suit the needs of a ruling class. Logic suggests otherwise. The very force of moral injunctions in the hands of a ruling class surely derives from the fact that ruling class morality represents an adaptation to a pre-existing tendency for human beings to think and behave in moral terms.  If such a pre-existing tendency did not exist, the efficacy of ruling class morality would probably be pretty feeble if not non existent. In fact you fatally undermine your whole argument by asserting that there never was a “Hobbesian state of nature” prior to the appearance of the state and private property.  Exactly!!  And how do imagine these pre-state hunter gatherer societies held together if not through strong bonds of moral affilation and moral identification with the group? If “We and other animals are naturally caring and compassionate” the logical corollary of that is that we are naturally also moral animals. While being caring and compassionate, in itself, is a necessary but not sufficient, grounds for a moral outlook, the application of these attributes or qualities, I suggest,  cannot but express in the form of a set of rules or expectations about how we ought to behave towards one another.In other words, in the form of morality

[Anonymous]

 I don't need to be religious to be caring and compasionate; nor do I need an imposed  'morality'The whole argument on morality assumes that which needs to be proven. We will have to agree to disagree, it is an endless debate.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your whole line of argument, Vin. I think what you are doing is conflating one particular form of morality, based on private property, with morality per se.  Morality predates property society and indeed as I indicated earlier, a kind of proto-morality can even be found among some species of animals – in particular the primates – where there is substantial evidence of rule governed behaviour being reinforced by sanctions and rewards. Not only are you confusing one form of morality with morality itself but you are also confusing it with the actions of the state.  You are arguing that morality is some kind of ideological form or contrivance invented by the state to enforce compliance which is actually a rather idealist way of looking at the subject – that morality was somehow magicked into existence to suit the needs of a ruling class. Logic suggests otherwise. The very force of moral injunctions in the hands of a ruling class surely derives from the fact that ruling class morality represents an adaptation to a pre-existing tendency for human beings to think and behave in moral terms.  If such a pre-existing tendency did not exist, the efficacy of ruling class morality would probably be pretty feeble if not non existent. In fact you fatally undermine your whole argument by asserting that there never was a “Hobbesian state of nature” prior to the appearance of the state and private property.  Exactly!!  And how do imagine these pre-state hunter gatherer societies held together if not through strong bonds of moral affilation and moral identification with the group? If “We and other animals are naturally caring and compassionate” the logical corollary of that is that we are naturally also moral animals. While being caring and compassionate, in itself, is a necessary but not sufficient, grounds for a moral outlook, the application of these attributes or qualities, I suggest,  cannot but express in the form of a set of rules or expectations about how we ought to behave towards one another.In other words, in the form of morality

[SocialistPunk]

Vin wrote:

 I don't need to be religious to be caring and compasionate; nor do I need an imposed  'morality'The whole argument on morality assumes that which needs to be proven. We will have to agree to disagree, it is an endless debate.

Robbo presents a very powerful case for morality as a concept likely predating class divided society. Of course there is no hard evidence to support, but through reasoned, logical argument he has been able to present a convincing case. Without, may I add, any mention of support for religion.The case for socialism is yet to be proved, but socialists insist there is valid justification for the concept, based on reasoned, logical argument.

[Anonymous]

I have not been convinced. There is is evidence that people cared for one another and had social rules. Asserting that is 'morality' doesn't make it so.It also challenges my deeply held belief that humans care, socialise and empathise without religion and morality.They used to say athiests needed god to prevent them getting drunk becoming uncaring and murderous. Today's evidence suggests that athiests are more caring and empathetic than religious people.As I say, we will have to agree to disagree.  

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your whole line of argument, Vin. I think what you are doing is conflating one particular form of morality, based on private property, with morality per se.  Morality predates property society and indeed as I indicated earlier, a kind of proto-morality can even be found among some species of animals – in particular the primates – where there is substantial evidence of rule governed behaviour being reinforced by sanctions and rewards. Not only are you confusing one form of morality with morality itself but you are also confusing it with the actions of the state.  You are arguing that morality is some kind of ideological form or contrivance invented by the state to enforce compliance which is actually a rather idealist way of looking at the subject – that morality was somehow magicked into existence to suit the needs of a ruling class. Logic suggests otherwise. The very force of moral injunctions in the hands of a ruling class surely derives from the fact that ruling class morality represents an adaptation to a pre-existing tendency for human beings to think and behave in moral terms.  If such a pre-existing tendency did not exist, the efficacy of ruling class morality would probably be pretty feeble if not non existent. In fact you fatally undermine your whole argument by asserting that there never was a “Hobbesian state of nature” prior to the appearance of the state and private property.  Exactly!!  And how do imagine these pre-state hunter gatherer societies held together if not through strong bonds of moral affilation and moral identification with the group? If “We and other animals are naturally caring and compassionate” the logical corollary of that is that we are naturally also moral animals. While being caring and compassionate, in itself, is a necessary but not sufficient, grounds for a moral outlook, the application of these attributes or qualities, I suggest,  cannot but express in the form of a set of rules or expectations about how we ought to behave towards one another.In other words, in the form of morality

 Three thumbs up, Lol. Isn't one enough. Still assertion 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

  And how do imagine these pre-state hunter gatherer societies held together if not through strong bonds of moral affilation and moral identification with the group?

 Because by their very nature they are social. You claim the ties were 'moral'. It is assertion that needs to be proven. It is more likely that the strong ties could have been caused through necessity and fear. Why the need to say they were guided by 'morality'Bees have strong bonds. I don't believe it has anything to do with 'morality' But of course now that god has been debunked we need to find something to replace it, something to make humans 'special'. We weren't created by god but we have 'morals'What I do find is that when the 'morality' argument is put forward it is with the same prejudice and intolerent  fervor as religious beliefs. If you don't go along with the argument you must be 'immoral'  If you wish to refer to me as immoral, I have been called worse when I first became an athiestAs an' immoral athiest' I am tolerent enought to agree to disagree

[Anonymous]

SocialistPunk wrote:

The case for socialism is yet to be proved, but socialists insist there is valid justification for the concept, based on reasoned, logical argument.

 And my argument against the 'moral' case for socialism is not?

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Not only are you confusing one form of morality with morality itself but you are also confusing it with the actions of the state.  You are arguing that morality is some kind of ideological form or contrivance invented by the state to enforce compliance which is actually a rather idealist way of looking at the subject – that morality was somehow magicked into existence to suit the needs of a ruling class. Logic suggests otherwise. The very force of moral injunctions in the hands of a ruling class surely derives from the fact that ruling class morality represents an adaptation to a pre-existing tendency for human beings to think and behave in moral terms.  If such a pre-existing tendency did not exist, the efficacy of ruling class morality would probably be pretty feeble if not non existent.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I am surprised you would introduce stawmen just because you can't back up assertions

[SocialistPunk]

Vin wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

The case for socialism is yet to be proved, but socialists insist there is valid justification for the concept, based on reasoned, logical argument.

 And my argument against the 'moral' case for socialism is not?

I was commenting on the following quote and suggesting it was not a strong argument against Robbo's points.

Vin wrote:

 I don't need to be religious to be caring and compasionate; nor do I need an imposed  'morality'The whole argument on morality assumes that which needs to be proven. We will have to agree to disagree, it is an endless debate.

I must once again point out that no one is arguing that the case for socialism is a moral one. Only that there is a moral element to it.

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting read by Lafargue and not very long https://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1895/xx/idealism.htm

[SocialistPunk]

I'm not trying to be rude, Vin. But interesting in what way?

[Anonymous]

I like it. It expresses part of the socialist/materialist view of the mind and human societyThe idea of Justice which, according to Jaurès, lies dormant in the mind of the savage, did not creep into the human brain until after the institution of private property.Which is what I was saying above 

[Author]

Posts