Evil
- This topic has 93 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin, I don't recall mentioning the idea of "justice".I simply suggest what we call morality is based upon social rules of conduct, ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Or in very simple terms, right and wrong.As Robbo put across rather well in his argument, if humans didn't have ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, prior to the division of society introduced by private property, then the ruling class would have been unable to introduce such an alien concept into society.
i think the point is that millions if not billions of the working class do accept the behaviour of the ruling-class, the social rules of the game.
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin, I don't recall mentioning the idea of "justice".I simply suggest what we call morality is based upon social rules of conduct, ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Or in very simple terms, right and wrong.As Robbo put across rather well in his argument, if humans didn't have ideas of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, prior to the division of society introduced by private property, then the ruling class would have been unable to introduce such an alien concept into society.'Justice' is a moral concept. I blame 'unacceptable' behaviour on the relations of production.You keep saying robbo put a stong argument, that is a matter of opinion. it is not a convincing argument to assert that the cause of social bonds is morality. It is a philosophical assumption. Do merecats and bees have moral codes? Or are they naturally social animals and form bonds out of necessity to survive?The two sides of the argument will never agree which is why I suggested leaving it at that. Rather than go around in circles
Just uploaded to the audio section here is a talk by Barltrop in which he answers a question along these lines in Part 2 at 17 minutes 26 seconds in.
Quote:'Our appeal is not and never has been a humanitarian one. We stand for … the material interests of the working class. When I say that war is an effect of capitalism, the condemnation of war is not a humanitarian one, the condemnation of war is an effect – a pure and simple kind of thing – it is not in the interest of the working class to get killed in millions …'Do merkats and bees have moral codes? Or are they naturally social animals and form bonds out of necessity to survive?You make an interesting point. However the difference between bees and meerkats is important, it also relates to humans as well. As bees are insects they do not develop or display attachments (in the sense of Attachment Theory). Meerkats, because they are mammals, have evolved, as all mammals have to develop these attachments. Mammal brains appear to experience emotion, which to a certain extent appears to be absent or lacking in reptiles, birds, insects, etc. What are termed "Higher Order" mammals appear to have more complex development of emotions and feelings. Social comfort and well being appears to be more developed as a need in "higher order" mammals, as to an extent demonstrated in Harlow and Harlow's experiments in monkeys, where absence of social care and emotional stimulation, produced infant monkeys that were not only emotionally damaged but were physically smaller but had less well developed immune systems. When given the choice of food from a non comforting source or comfort from an attachment figure, the monkeys choose comfort from the attachment figure. What I am trying to say is that in humans, and other mammals, sociability, caring for each other, concern for each other, even what is known as love, is more than just the necessity to survive, it is hard wired into us.What I was trying to get across to our mutual feathered friend is that our intellectual, linguistic, emotional, moral, empathetic, physical and conceptual development as individuals is shaped not only by our economic environment but also by the development of emotional bonds from conception. Children who have been subject to emotional abuse and neglect have demonstrably smaller brains, with less synaptic development than those brought up with secure attachments. I would argue that a strong argument for socialism is the fact that it can assist in creating an environment where emotional security, love, warmth and affection are more readily available to infants and children than capitalism. Some might call that a moral argument, some might call it a argument from a position of class interest. All I know is that this system of society is not good for the mental health of infants and children of the vast majority of us.
Tim the geordie and the mackem will have to disagree on this one. That'll be first, lol .If you have ever had a dog you will know that we are not special.Dogs feel what I feel; of that I have no doubt. They will cooperate, 'love', cry and laugh, form bonds, morn, unite, talk etc etcI agree with Baltrop. It is not morality that makes us human. If it were, then capitalism would never have come about. And if you wait for our 'morality' to assert itself to achieve peace and justice then as Engels said you will wait forever.There are many animals far more caring etc than humans and therefore more 'moral'Revolutions happen as the result of class struggle based on conflicting economic interests and has in the past been dressed up with 'morality'. Socialism abolishes the need for moral justification.How can a socialist movement say that war is immoral? We are not pacifists, we oppose capitalism's wars because they are fought in the ecomic interests of our masters.What if 80% of workers want socialism and some of the 20% take up arms and even a nuclear weapon against the majority?Are you going to act 'moral' or are you going to act in your economic interests?
I'm not saying that Socialism is a moral argument, I'm saying there is a moral dimension to it, even though I agree that morality is a socially created concept. As for dogs, I'm afraid we're back to the old Mackem-Geordie divide, cats are better!!!!
Vin, once more you paint it as an "either or" situation.When you see a picture of a child bloated from starvation on the verge of death, it evokes powerful empathic emotions within you, as it does me. I expect you would agree with me that to allow that child to die from such an easily preventable cause is wrong?As socialists we made that decision not solely from a position of logic, but a mix of both. The initial trigger is empathy, leading to a decision that, "It's wrong". Then our understanding of capitalism leads us to a realisation of the ultimate long term remedy, to reorganise society along socialist lines. The logical, economic interest bit.It's a mix. I'm not saying in what proportion. It's you and one or two others that insist on one position having dominance over the other.
Just a point Vin. You quote Engels to support your point of economic interest over morality, What was Engels, the bloated capitalist's, economic interest in developing Socialism, surely his economic interest would lie in the maintenance of capitalism?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Just a point Vin. You quote Engels to support your point of economic interest over morality, What was Engels, the bloated capitalist's, economic interest in developing Socialism, surely his economic interest would lie in the maintenance of capitalism?I don't know. Why does a society of 'moral' human beings murder each other in their millions and allow millionsmor to starve to death?Role on immorality and the society that removes the need for itWhy do workers ignore their economic interests? Engels was in a minority, most capitalists follow their interests and ignore 'morality'
SocialistPunk wrote:It's you and one or two others that insist on one position having dominance over the other.Not so. It is party positionI'm sure someone will remember the Conference resolution narrowly carried
SocialistPunk wrote:When you see a picture of a child bloated from starvation on the verge of death, it evokes powerful empathic emotions within you, as it does me. I expect you would agree with me that to allow that child to die from such an easily preventable cause is wrong?Yes I feel powerful emotionsTo say something is 'wrong' is meaningless to me. It is like saying it is a sin.Empathy and biliousness doesn't amount to 'morality' Some animals show emotion and vomit when they see other animals' in accidentsAs I am the disbeliever on this subject surely it is for 'moralists' – for the want of a better word – to prove the point. As with christianity – for the want of a better anology, it is not up to me to disprove the existence of god.So could you and Tim give me a list of 'wrongs' and 'rights' that should guide socialists to the revolution and beyond. Have I already proved that we cannot claim that war is immoral or are you still not convinced?
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:When you see a picture of a child bloated from starvation on the verge of death, it evokes powerful empathic emotions within you, as it does me. I expect you would agree with me that to allow that child to die from such an easily preventable cause is wrong?Yes I feel powerful emotionsTo say something is 'wrong' is meaningless to me. It is like saying it is a sin.Empathy and biliousness doesn't amount to 'morality' Some animals show emotion and vomit when they see other animals' in accidentsAs I am the disbeliever on this subject surely it is for 'moralists' – for the want of a better word – to prove the point. As with christianity – for the want of a better anology, it is not up to me to disprove the existence of god.So could you and Tim give me a list of 'wrongs' and 'rights' that should guide socialists to the revolution and beyond. Have I already proved that we cannot claim that war is immoral or are you still not convinced?
Vin,Robbo already provided some good points in post #33 of this thread. I would go as far to say he made a good case for morality. The quote below was your rebuttal. If you read #33 you'll find Robbo made no mention of religion.
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.You might not think it's wrong to allow children to die of starvation, but I certainly think it's wrong.It's not a matter of logic, logic doesn't make me feel empathy. It's the empathy I feel that leads me to say it is wrong, not economic interests. The issue of economic interest is simply the way to change the situation.As for socialist rights and wrongs the DoP already seems to think freedom is crucial as well as non discrimination on the grounds of race and sex. It's a start I guess.
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:When you see a picture of a child bloated from starvation on the verge of death, it evokes powerful empathic emotions within you, as it does me. I expect you would agree with me that to allow that child to die from such an easily preventable cause is wrong?Yes I feel powerful emotionsTo say something is 'wrong' is meaningless to me. It is like saying it is a sin.Empathy and biliousness doesn't amount to 'morality' Some animals show emotion and vomit when they see other animals' in accidentsAs I am the disbeliever on this subject surely it is for 'moralists' – for the want of a better word – to prove the point. As with christianity – for the want of a better anology, it is not up to me to disprove the existence of god.So could you and Tim give me a list of 'wrongs' and 'rights' that should guide socialists to the revolution and beyond. Have I already proved that we cannot claim that war is immoral or are you still not convinced?
Vin,Robbo already provided some good points in post #33 of this thread. I would go as far to say he made a good case for morality. The quote below was your rebuttal. If you read #33 you'll find Robbo made no mention of religion.
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.You might not think it's wrong to allow children to die of starvation, but I certainly think it's wrong.It's not a matter of logic, logic doesn't make me feel empathy. It's the empathy I feel that leads me to say it is wrong, not economic interests. The issue of economic interest is simply the way to change the situation.As for socialist rights and wrongs the DoP already seems to think freedom is crucial as well as non discrimination on the grounds of race and sex. It's a start I guess.
Come the revolution I hope the members who use morality against the revolution are in the minority. 'We shouldn't deal with this violent minority cos that would be 'wrong' 'As I said earlier , this discussion will go nowhere and you are using the same argument christians use agains t athiest. I am defeated because you have a 'morality' and I don't. I am therefore 'evil'. After all hunger is 'evi'. I know you are a very intellegent person and I am surprised that you would use that argument against me. I care and empathise with staving children a lot more than a lot of religious and moral hypocrites. And believe it our not I would give my life for any of my kids without any need for any socially constructed 'morality''Morality' is an invention and an ideological tool of the ruling class throughout history and taken to its pinnacle by religious fanatics. Socialists cannot follow and adapt it to our use.I know a lot of moral cowardly hypocritesIf you and others wish to construct a moral argument against capitalism then good luck with that.I won't be taking part because you will always have 'morality' on your side and you will always have the ultimate argument that all detractors are 'immoral' or 'evil' or uncaringNo thanks
This issue has already been thoroughly discussed herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-moral-well-class-or-scientific-issue
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.