The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:Are people still calling us, “abstract propagandists?gnome wrote:Yes, quite often.
What a pity!
What inflames my rightious indignation and ANGST, is the religious bodies either singular, or collective, claiming that, without religion, one cannot have a, MORAL COMPASS. That the nonreligious are somehow missing out on SOMETHING! That they, in some way, feel sorry for us.I choose to put a different slant on things! I take responsibity for, MY, actions. As a human being I, take responsibility. Whether right or wrong, forgetting the mores or values of the society I inhabit, they are MY decisions. Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.I relate to my fellow human beings as, fellow human beings. Not as the issue of a GOD, any GOD.
steve colborn wrote:Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.
steve colborn wrote:Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.Fabian wrote:Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.What? Are you on a wind-up mate? What part of my post that you took this comment from, can you possibly call, nihilistic?Please elucidate!
Fabian wrote:steve colborn wrote:Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.
You appear to be suffering from a misapprehension about the rejection by socialists of the concepts of good and evil.Socialists are indignant about the effects of capitalism on people and the environment. However, the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material class interests. Marxism reveals, as no other theory can, how capitalism came into being, what its dynamics are, why it must exploit and what it must be replaced with. Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism. In all societies there must be rules of conduct or the society would fall to pieces. In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life.
Fabian wrote:steve colborn wrote:Not good or evil, concepts I dismiss with intellectual contempt.Ethical nihilism is a performative contradiction.
Is this what is meant by “a sophisticated rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”?
steve colborn wrote:What part of my post that you took this comment from, can you possibly call, nihilistic?Please elucidate!Ethical nihilism is the position that there is no such thing as good and bad/evil. But when entering in a discusion with someone one, by that act alone, accepts as true a number of norms, some epistemological, some logical, some ethical.
gnome wrote:However, the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material class interests.Why do you find class interests worth valuing? And when you answer that, I can again ask why you think that. And then again, and again. Until we come to the core- normative ethical- stance that you hold and base your other stances on. Here’s a list of various ethical positions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics#Normative_ethical_theories
Quote:Marxism reveals, as no other theory can, how capitalism came into being, what its dynamics are, why it must exploit and what it must be replaced with.Sort of political calvinism? Total determinism, Unconditional kyklos, Limited emancipantion, Irresistible revolution, Perservance of the proleteriat.
Quote:Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism.Another version of psychologist fallacy. Motives of a supporter or an enforcer of an idea are irrelevant to the fact of whether that idea is true or false.
Quote:in all societies there must be rules of conduct or the society would fall to pieces. In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life.Which doesn’t have to do with ethics, you’re talking descriptivly about customs, but ethics is normative. It’s like as if you would say- in this present system, the rulling class says 2+2=x (doesn’t matter what), but when my class comes into power, we will teach that 2+2=y; and the problem here is that this descriptive exposition totally disregards the normative aspect of what is right and what is wrong when talking about how much is 2+2.
Fabian wrote:Sort of political calvinism? Total determinism, Unconditional kyklos, Limited emancipantion, Irresistible revolution, Perservance of the proleteriat.Slicing through the ridiculous verbiage and the nominal and naturalistic fallacies in your posts it appears that you are adopting a moral absolutist position which views that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.Socialists do not subscribe to this quasi-religious, moral absolutist position. The social system which now exists in all countries of the world we describe as capitalism. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.) We describe this as neither good nor evil.The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth. Again it’s not a matter of good versus evil but while this situation remains it is clearly not in the material interests of the vast majority.This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism.Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs” would apply.So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every individual towards the issues that concern them.In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.
gnome wrote:it appears that you are adopting a moral absolutist position which views that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.Yes, I’m a deonotologist, not a consequentialist.
Quote:Socialists do not subscribe to this quasi-religious, moral absolutist position.You can call it quasi what ever, but some moral norms are absolute and undeniably true as a priori norms of discourse.
Quote:The social system which now exists in all countries of the world we describe as capitalism. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.) We describe this as neither good nor evil.So why you are against capitalism?
Quote:The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth. Again it’s not a matter of good versus evil but while this situation remains it is clearly not in the material interests of the vast majority.Could you define what you mean by material interest- owning stuff you want? And when you define it, tell me why is relevant to have one’s material interest fullfiled?
Quote:This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism.And you say that is not a bad thing.
Fabian wrote:Yes, I’m a deonotologist, not a consequentialist.Is that the same as a “deontologist”? I think we may be pragmatists.
gnome wrote:Socialists are indignant about the effects of capitalism on people and the environment. However, the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material class interests. Marxism reveals, as no other theory can, how capitalism came into being, what its dynamics are, why it must exploit and what it must be replaced with. Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism. In all societies there must be rules of conduct or the society would fall to pieces. In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life.Another classical example of the kind of conceptual muddle that seems to underlie much SPGB thinking The case for socialism, it is claimed, is not grounded in morality but in ” material class interests”. Why is it not possible to be grounded in both these things? Why should it be seen as one or the other? Socialists are said to be “indignant” about the effects of capitalism but how is that indignation not a sense of moral repulsion at what capitalism does? How can one even begin to talk about the working class being “exploited” without this entailing a sense of moral outrage? The very term exploitation is a morally loaded one. So why not just call a spade a spade?I suspect all this nonsense about socialism having nothing to do with morality stems from an old fashioned historical attachment of some socialists to a deluded scientism and the pretension to being value-free in one’s analysis of capitalism – so called “scientific materialism”. It goes back to 19th century positivism, and has been a blight on the socialist movement ever since. Marx ironically in his early writings regarded the fact-value distinction as a symptom of human alienation and so it is. In his “1844 Manuscripts”, he contended that it “stems from the very nature of estrangement that each sphere applies to men a different and opposite yardstick—ethics one and political economy another.”Anyone who thinks they can be in the business of changing society without this engaging or challenging the kind of values people hold is seriously misinformed What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others. It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism” How many times have I heard socialists come out with the assertion: “I want socialism because it is in my material self interests.” It makes me cringe every time I hear this because it is so misleading. Actually, if it really was the case that what drives you to want socialism is self interest and nothing else then you would be better advised to cease forthwith your dilettantish dabbling in a revolutionary socialist political movement and focus your energies on becoming a capitalist instead – or at least stabbing your fellow workers in the back on your way up the career ladder or whatever Yes, of course “self interest” is involved to an extent but other things matter too and this is the point . I find it extraordinary that the above post can even invoke the idea of “material class interests” without seeing that in alluding to the interests of others in the working class you are actually and unavoidably adopting a moral perspective! Morality, like I said is other oriented. So the “case for socialism” must by definition to an extent be grounded in morality if it involves workers coming to identify with each other on a class basis. On the face of it, the reason why some socialists reject the notion of morality is contained in this sentence above Morality does not exist in a timeless social and economic vacuum; the current (basically liberal) notions of rights, obligations, justice, etc. misrepresent the exploitative social relations of capitalism and are inappropriate in the struggle for socialism But who says morality exists in a timeless social vacuum? This is a complete straw argument. Not only that, it is one that is completely contradicted by the following sentence which shows morality not to be timeless afterall : In a socialist society, when it has been established, there will be rules of conduct in harmony with its social basis. The moral outlook will be the custom, based on voluntary co-operation with common ownership and democratic control of the means of life. Implied in this is the idea that morality far from being “timeless” is eminently adaptable according to the kind of society you live in. Well, if that is the case why then are we not also talking about the movement to establish socialism likewise adapting morality accordingly in line with that objective – in other words, accepting that the case for socialism is also in part a moral one? Morality does not have to be bourgeois morality. The morality of the socialist movement is a proletarian morality. The bourgeosie dont have a monopoly on “morality” but this is what we are encouraged to believe it would seem. Oddly enough Engels hinted at the kind of position I’m advocating here in his Anti DuhringAnd as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or, ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination, and the future interests of the oppressed” (F Engels Anti-Dühring, Moscow 1947, p117).
Fabian wrote:Yes, I’m a deonotologist, not a consequentialist.Wow, a deontologist, eh; well that don’t impress me much. Would you be a devotee of Kunt, oops, sorry, I mean Kant?So, you never lie, cheat, are dishonest, and, if you’re an employee, are never late for work. You really are too good to be true. Presumably you’re a pacifist and a vegan as well.Interestingly, you have unwittingly provided another sound reason why those with a religious conviction, which in most cases will be those who hold a moral absolutist position, should not be admitted to membership of the party.
gnome wrote:This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism.Fabian wrote:And you say that is not a bad thing.Certainly not for the capitalist class.
robbo203 wrote:Morality does not have to be bourgeois morality. The morality of the socialist movement is a proletarian morality. The bourgeosie dont have a monopoly on “morality” but this is what we are encouraged to believe it would seem.This is what was actually said; nowhere does the statement exclude the possibility of elements of a proletarian morality coming into play.
gnome wrote:Socialists are indignant about the effects of capitalism on people and the environment. However, the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material class interests.However, the issue of Marx and morality poses a conundrum. On reading Marx’s works at all periods of his life, there appears to be the strongest possible distaste towards bourgeois capitalist society, and an undoubted endorsement of future communist society. Yet the terms of this antipathy and endorsement are far from clear. Despite expectations, Marx never says that capitalism is unjust. Neither does he say that communism would be a just form of society. In fact he takes pains to distance himself from those who engage in a discourse of justice, and makes a conscious attempt to exclude direct moral commentary in his own works.The initial argument that Marx must have thought that capitalism is unjust is based on the observation that Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another. How could this fail to be unjust? Yet it is notable that Marx never concludes this, and in Capital he goes as far as to say that such exchange is “by no means an injustice”.Furthermore, again according to Marx, “in any society the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class” (The German Ideology – 1846) , which inescapably include precepts of morality.
gnome wrote:robbo203 wrote:Morality does not have to be bourgeois morality. The morality of the socialist movement is a proletarian morality. The bourgeoisie don’t have a monopoly on “morality” but this is what we are encouraged to believe it would seem.This is what was actually said; nowhere does the statement exclude the possibility of elements of a proletarian morality coming into play.
This is muddled and contradictory. If being ” indignant” means “elements of a proletarian morality coming into play ” then why say the case for socialism is not grounded in morality but in material interests alone? Why not just come with it straightforwardly and admit that the case for socialism is based BOTH on a moral repugnance towards capitalism AND on what is perceived to be the material interests of the working class? This pussyfooting around the notion of morality is, as far as I’m convinced, baggage from the long tradition that has infected the socialist movement from the beginning with its emphasis on the fact-value distinction and its delusional tendencies towards scientism
gnome wrote:However, the issue of Marx and morality poses a conundrum. On reading Marx’s works at all periods of his life, there appears to be the strongest possible distaste towards bourgeois capitalist society, and an undoubted endorsement of future communist society. Yet the terms of this antipathy and endorsement are far from clear. Despite expectations, Marx never says that capitalism is unjust. Neither does he say that communism would be a just form of society. In fact he takes pains to distance himself from those who engage in a discourse of justice, and makes a conscious attempt to exclude direct moral commentary in his own works.The initial argument that Marx must have thought that capitalism is unjust is based on the observation that Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another. How could this fail to be unjust? Yet it is notable that Marx never concludes this, and in Capital he goes as far as to say that such exchange is “by no means an injustice”.Yes but he also in “Capital ” compares this process of exploitation to the “age old activity of the conqueror who buys commodities from conquered with the money he has stolen from them” and talks of the economic surplus having been “embezzled” from the worker. How does one square that with the claim that there is no injustice involved?The plain fact of the matter was that Marx writings on the matter of morality were contradictory. I agree with Alvin Gouldner when he refers to what he calls the “two marxisms” – Scientific Marxism and Critical Marxism (A Giddens, Social Theory and Modern Sociology,1987, Polity Press Cambridge p.256-262 ) which, in his view, are fundamentally irreconcilable.
gnome wrote:Furthermore, again according to Marx, “in any society the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class” (The German Ideology – 1846) , which inescapably include precepts of morality.Which is precisely why resistance to the ideas of a ruling class must inescapably include precepts of morality. that run counter to their precepts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.