Is morality oppressive in and of itself?

Hi

However, morality defined in terms of personal boundaries and what is an acceptable way to treat other people is, I would argue, a positive thing from a libertarian standpoint, it protects the individual from oppression.

Whatever works for you. It’s a question of aesthetics, as long you behave I’m not concerned with your specific internal value model or motivations. You could be doing it because it sexually arouses you for all I care.

Love

LR

Wouldn't we need social norms, albeit a fairly different set, even in an anarchist society?

Wasn't it because he felt that we should all be "governed" by the moral force of those around us even in a free society that William Morris would not describe himself as an anarchist?

What is the difference between morality and ethics? Does it come down to the first being established externally and the second being something we develop through reason?

Social norms should include the norm of being able to transgress or transcend the norms under certain circumstances. Doesn't this make sense for a free society so that most people would be expected to behave in a certain way but others would have to be able to do it differently? The example of collectivisation Vs individual land holdings springs to mind but there must be others; erm, what about attending or not attending meetings or assemblies?

yes.

Do I think there will ever be a society without oppression. No.

In the immortal words of Nicholas Pheabus. Anarchism? No. thats not possible. Libertarian Communism if we're lucky.

Morality isn't oppressive as such, it's merely a word to describe the prevailing social norms. In capitalist society it is oppressive because society is oppressive. A communist society will still have a morality. We just don't know what it'll look like.

I posted smething here, I'm sure :confused:

lem, the last day's posts were lost unfortunately.

Blackn'red Ned

Wasn't it because he felt that we should all be "governed" by the moral force of those around us even in a free society that William Morris would not describe himself as an anarchist?

It was because he made shit wallpaper actually.

It comes down to whether you define morality as a system imposed by society, or a set of personal beliefs, I believe we talked about ethics last time. Morality as imposed, ethics as belonging to one's own system of values.

Semantics aside I'd say that morality comes from societal norms, ethics are a personal interpretation of morality, based on personal views.

My ethical system allows me to steal from capitalists, but not from poor people, fo example.

Morality as imposed, ethics as belonging to one's own system of values.

Morality is about duty and is concerned with the end, and ethics is about virtue (honesty, sincerity etc). Does anyone disagree with this?

In which case you have sometging to gain from being ethical - character!

I don't see how this is any less imposed though - both are learned, one still has a choice to be moral.

My ethical system allows me to steal from capitalists, but not from poor people, fo example.

I which case, I would guess, that you have internalized imperatives that are good for you, i.e. ones that build character, but not others, that do not. Ethics rather than morality, useful and not.

I don't think ethics can be considered purely on an individual level. The whole point for me is that ethical views are based on what we would personally like to happen to us, and if we wish others to respect this we have to respect others. Ethics is about compromise between my needs and the needs of others on whom we are dependent.

I don't think that William Morris was presenting a view that is incompatible with anarchism when he expressed the view that we should all be "governed" by the moral force of those around us even in a free society. Anarchism isn't against rules or customs, its against hierarchy. My freedom is limited to that which does not harm or restrict the freedom of others, and where i choose to cooperate with others there has to be give and take. Where what I want to do and what others want to do is mutually exclusive we have to deal with it on the basis of equality (direct democracy), and this does mean that for the sake of other peoples equal autonomy, mine is not absolute.

Thats my two pence, anyway.

It depends.

I tend towards non-existent ethics, why bother doing bad stuff, indeed, why bother doing anything at all? This absolves you from all guilt, if you never have to do anything, then you never have to make decisions, then you never have a moral quandary. But in a capitalist society you can contribute to the suffering of others by just existing, so I think that's why I'm active in certain groups, so I can be at peace with myself, by actively helping people, I'm negating my guilt for just existing.

I mean, from a Buddhist perspective, why would you bother with politics at all? it just aggravates you unneccessarily, much better to adopt the position that politicians are all nasty, nasty people, ignore them, and try to live your life as ethically as possible, by making your own and other people's lives better, albeit marginally.

Although, morals are useful when you want to criticise people at the top, by pointing out that all they want to do is harm people, I mean isn't that the sole aim of politicians, in effect? To bring misery into millions of people's lives? Then you realise that politics is all a charade. But hey ho

No Sf, I don't think that Morris' position was incompatible with anarchism either, but as far as the label went at least, he did! He just called himself a socialist.

I think that the growth of solidarity and mutuality that would necessarily come with the growth and establishment of an anarchist society would be amazing. Without demanding a window on each person's soul, wouldn't this be the foundation of the new society, its ethos?

Bodach gun bhrigh

It depends.

I tend towards non-existent ethics, why bother doing bad stuff, indeed, why bother doing anything at all? This absolves you from all guilt, if you never have to do anything, then you never have to make decisions, then you never have a moral quandary. But in a capitalist society you can contribute to the suffering of others by just existing, so I think that's why I'm active in certain groups, so I can be at peace with myself, by actively helping people, I'm negating my guilt for just existing.

So what happens if you're out in the forest and you hear somebody at the river screaming for help? Do you help them or do nothing at all, make no decision, and let them drown? Or in this case do you make an exception? And if so, what if it's a murderer escaping from his pursuers and you helped him get away unknowingly?

What are they going to do to him if they catch him? How do we know he is a murderer?

Come on this is just getting interesting!

Blackn'red Ned

What are they going to do to him if they catch him?

You don't know.

How do we know he is a murderer?

You don't know that either. That's the point. My example is a bit plagiarised from Kant's categorical imperative :)

ghostzart

Bodach gun bhrigh

It depends.

I tend towards non-existent ethics, why bother doing bad stuff, indeed, why bother doing anything at all? This absolves you from all guilt, if you never have to do anything, then you never have to make decisions, then you never have a moral quandary. But in a capitalist society you can contribute to the suffering of others by just existing, so I think that's why I'm active in certain groups, so I can be at peace with myself, by actively helping people, I'm negating my guilt for just existing.

So what happens if you're out in the forest and you hear somebody at the river screaming for help? Do you help them or do nothing at all, make no decision, and let them drown? Or in this case do you make an exception? And if so, what if it's a murderer escaping from his pursuers and you helped him get away unknowingly?

It depends, if they were an executive for british petrolium, I'd let them drown, if they weren't I'd probably save them, maybe, as long as by doing that I didn't run the risk of drowning myself. I think my policy is don't do anything that will involve you making ethical decisions, because most of the situations you suggested don't come up in everyday life. And if your murderer had just murdered a politician, by gumbo I'd let him escape. :D

ghostzart

Blackn'red Ned

What are they going to do to him if they catch him?

You don't know.

How do we know he is a murderer?

You don't know that either. That's the point. My example is a bit plagiarised from Kant's categorical imperative :)

Well if you don't know what's the point of going to all the trouble of intervening if all you're going to do is get yourself a doing.

Does standing in the forest wondering whether to intervene in someone else's troubles get us any closer to understanding whether morality is oppressive in itself?

I don't know, so I'm going to ask: is the point here that you either accept that you must intervene under a certain set of circumstances (to save someone who is drowning whoever they might be) or you must be prepared always to trust whatever snapshot of reality you have at any particular moment as a guide to your actions?

Would this be like arguing that in a community decision-making process either solidarity should give you cause to suppress your own will on occasion or that you should always express and follow through your own desires? And is this in any way related to the old chestnut about consensus decision making or voting?

Is any of this relevant? :oops:

It depends.

I tend towards non-existent ethics, why bother doing bad stuff, indeed, why bother doing anything at all? This absolves you from all guilt, if you never have to do anything, then you never have to make decisions, then you never have a moral quandary. But in a capitalist society you can contribute to the suffering of others by just existing, so I think that's why I'm active in certain groups, so I can be at peace with myself, by actively helping people, I'm negating my guilt for just existing.

I mean, from a Buddhist perspective, why would you bother with politics at all? it just aggravates you unneccessarily, much better to adopt the position that politicians are all nasty, nasty people, ignore them, and try to live your life as ethically as possible, by making your own and other people's lives better, albeit marginally.

Although, morals are useful when you want to criticise people at the top, by pointing out that all they want to do is harm people, I mean isn't that the sole aim of politicians, in effect? To bring misery into millions of people's lives? Then you realise that politics is all a charade. But hey ho

This is entirely the opposite of anarchism. Anarchism requires ethics and a sense of personal responsibility. You seem to be refusing to accept responsibility for either.

You do not contribute to the suffering of others by existing, the system which sustains and oppresses you simply oppresses others more, it claims to do so on your behalf, but this is not true. Class struggle in some countries has resulted in the capitalists deciding it is cheaper to buy of the w/c. This does not mean that they wouldn't reduce our wages to Thai/phillipino etc levels if they could.

Ethics are required, they govern our actions. Morality is a set of rules imposed to make us behave.

Ethics are required, they govern our actions. Morality is a set of rules imposed to make us behave.

I broadly agree, after all anarchism is order - there are certain influences and morals that any society builds. We conform, mainly unconsciously, due to normative and informative influences.

However, public opinion (which we can assume to form decisions in morals in such a society) can turn into a tyrrany in itself. It is a sensitive issue.

Morality is a set of rules imposed to make us behave.

I'm sticking with my original definition of virtue/dentology, in which case I see no reason why morality is imposed. Unless you suggest some kind of phenomenological non-naturalist theory, I see no way in which one could be anymore imposed than the other, cetainly in any absolute way.

I prefer morality, as its more concerned with ends, and "character" doesn't sound as important as, say, preventing murder.

Jef Costello

It depends.

I tend towards non-existent ethics, why bother doing bad stuff, indeed, why bother doing anything at all? This absolves you from all guilt, if you never have to do anything, then you never have to make decisions, then you never have a moral quandary. But in a capitalist society you can contribute to the suffering of others by just existing, so I think that's why I'm active in certain groups, so I can be at peace with myself, by actively helping people, I'm negating my guilt for just existing.

I mean, from a Buddhist perspective, why would you bother with politics at all? it just aggravates you unneccessarily, much better to adopt the position that politicians are all nasty, nasty people, ignore them, and try to live your life as ethically as possible, by making your own and other people's lives better, albeit marginally.

Although, morals are useful when you want to criticise people at the top, by pointing out that all they want to do is harm people, I mean isn't that the sole aim of politicians, in effect? To bring misery into millions of people's lives? Then you realise that politics is all a charade. But hey ho

This is entirely the opposite of anarchism. Anarchism requires ethics and a sense of personal responsibility. You seem to be refusing to accept responsibility for either.

You do not contribute to the suffering of others by existing, the system which sustains and oppresses you simply oppresses others more, it claims to do so on your behalf, but this is not true. Class struggle in some countries has resulted in the capitalists deciding it is cheaper to buy of the w/c. This does not mean that they wouldn't reduce our wages to Thai/phillipino etc levels if they could.

Ethics are required, they govern our actions. Morality is a set of rules imposed to make us behave.

Yeah but there's personal responsibility and personal responsibility. Why should I accept responsibility for something I'm never going to be able to change? And will only make myself frustrated by worrying about? You do contribute to other people's misery just by existing, say for example, you can't go through your daily life without buying things, most of which are created through the theft of other people's labour value.

I'm all for ethics in your personal life, but extending that to other realms becomes problematic, because you start imposing value systems on other people. Like, most anarchists will say, fight for the working classes, when a lot of working class people are entirely opposed to anarchism. If the working classes want to help themselves, then that's fine, but why should I adopt the condescending attitude that I know the answers to their problems better than they do?

I reckon having a class justice perspective precludes ethics, because you see reality in terms of opposing classes, and not in terms of individuals doing heinous deeds. If you wanted to criticise people ethically, then you'd have to exclude lots of people from any radical movement, because most people are not ethical. But, I'm happier having my sense of personal ethics intact and not worrying about the working class, mostly because I've been shat on by a lot of working class people. And middle class people, to be sure, but if you see the world in terms of class solidarity, then you're going to have to excuse a lot of arseholes, who have the attitude that, "it's allright for me to do this, because I'm working class." Like a lot of posters on this board will say, "it's allright for me to be an ignorant arsehole, because I'm on the side of proley justice fighting against bourgeois ignorance."

And why does no-one correlate the cause of class justice with what happened in Russia, and China, and Germany? You can excuse almost anything once you see the world in terms of class, and the ruling classes, ironically, can get away with anything once you say, oh, it's just the ruling class doing what they do.

If you preclude all choice from people's lives, if you say, no-one can make choices outside their class perspective, then you get rid of ethics. Which is why negative ethics is so fruitful, why should I kill anyone? why should I speak to people who regularly insult me? Why should I make other people's lives a misery? Why should I get involved in class struggle when most working class people are so brutalised they'd take fascism over liberation any day?

It's like Chomsky's latest book talks about the US's intention to have global hegemony, including nuclear weapons, and he wants people to get active to do something about it, but what good will that do? The world is in such a bad state, with no way of changing it by mass political action, that any attempt will just be beaten down. You can't fight the police and armed forces in America, you're not going to win, or at least not without killing so many people that the cause becomes worthless.

In short, I can't be arsed any more.

Thread nicely derailed :D

Man, I don't know who I am anymore 8)

Cheerfully withdrawn :D

Bodach gun bhrigh

Yeah but there's personal responsibility and personal responsibility. Why should I accept responsibility for something I'm never going to be able to change? And will only make myself frustrated by worrying about? You do contribute to other people's misery just by existing, say for example, you can't go through your daily life without buying things, most of which are created through the theft of other people's labour value.

I think we have got aour wires crossed I'm expecting you to accept responsibility for things that you can change, I don't believe that you can be responsible for something that you did not make happen. That's pointless guilt tripping and only directors of charities really need to be involved in that.

I don't think that we absolve the ruling class by saying that they are compeeled to act unethically. I say that we justify our belief that their should be no ruling class and re-affirm that we cannot get equality by asking for it nicely, we must demand it and take it.

I certainly would not believe that someone being working clas allowed them to behave inethically. I look on morality as something largely used to make us behave so I see no problem with people ignoring it. I think theft is wrong ethically, but I think stealing from Sainsbury's is ok because they steal from us on a daily basis.

If you preclude all choice from people's lives, if you say, no-one can make choices outside their class perspective, then you get rid of ethics. Which is why negative ethics is so fruitful, why should I kill anyone? why should I speak to people who regularly insult me? Why should I make other people's lives a misery? Why should I get involved in class struggle when most working class people are so brutalised they'd take fascism over liberation any day?

I never said this I don't think anyone else did. You always have a choice, but it is far easier to follow what you are trained to do.

I'm not sure what you mean by negative ethics but it seems like an abnegation of personal responsibility. It is a withdrawal.

It's a shame you seem to feel so defeated Bodach, I don't believe a revolution is likely and I'm pretty sure that I'll never see it. But we need to have hope.

Morality is about duty and is concerned with the end, and ethics is about virtue (honesty, sincerity etc). Does anyone disagree with this?

In which case you have sometging to gain from being ethical - character!

I don't see how this is any less imposed though - both are learned, one still has a choice to be moral.

I broadly agree with you, but there is a difference. Society rewards you, as far as it can, for being moral. For acting in the way that it orders and not breaking its rules. It does not reward you for being ethical, ethics are personal and based upon a view of the self. I am ethical because I like to feel that I am a good person. I am moral because I fear punishment.

O Troglodites, what moves you to this; uprightness becomes a burden to you. In your present condition, having no head, you are constrained in your own despite to be virtuous; otherwise your very existence would be at stake, and you would relapse into the wretched state of your ancestors. But this seems to you too heavy a yoke; you would rather become the subjects of a king, and submit to laws of his framing-laws less exacting than your present customs. You know that then you would be able to satisfy your ambition, and while away the time in slothful luxury; and that, provided you avoided the graver crimes, there would be no necessity for virtue

Bodach gun bhrigh

you can't go through your daily life without buying things, most of which are created through the theft of other people's labour value

that´d be crimethinc then :wink:

like Jef said, you only charity directors need to worry about making people feel personally responsible for arrangements imposed on them. Maybe we need a follow-up thread on ´anarchist ethics´? A pretty interesting topic ...

Jef Costello

I am ethical because I like to feel that I am a good person. I am moral because I fear punishment

I dnno, I feel like I can be moral (consider people's rights, rather than my own, e.g. virtue of honesty) without fear of punishment. What about when people's desire for virtue orients them towards being moral?

And I get bodach's problem, I think. Its very difficult to make your own decisions about what to do in ethical problems, its not like he's absolving himself of the negative consequences of being ethical, just saying that its better for someone else to decide, and I don't know if thats irresposible in the normal sense (e.g. stealing is irreponisble) (wlud you argue otherwise??), but perhaps wrong in that its not considering the end results of acting/not.

Not that I'm saying Bodach is WRONG or BAD or anything. No guilt trip from me, maaann

I don't think I was arguing against personal responsibility, it's just, personal responsibility need not arise if people didn't actually do so many bad things. Although, now I'm so confused I don't know what or where I'm arguing from.

Personal ethics good, impersonal ethics bad, and I also reckon you can't have blanket morality judgements, and it's not easy to have collective ethics.

Class struggle would be great if it ever actually happened, but it doesn't look too likely at the mo. :cry: So in the breach, to act ethically, I'll withdraw from the class struggle so I don't antagonise too many people. :confused:

Lordy, I need another night's sleep

...So your saying that you are responsible for the things that you affect, but not what other people cause? So try not to cause anything bad. What is impersoal resonsibility - being responsible forthe murderer that lives a couple of countys up?

can't have blanket morality judgements, and it's not easy to have collective ethics.

I agree with this, but maybe collective ethics like solidarity is what its all about.

lem

...So your saying that you are responsible for the things that you affect, but not what other people cause? So try not to cause anything bad. What is impersoal resonsibility - being responsible forthe murderer that lives a couple of countys up?

can't have blanket morality judgements, and it's not easy to have collective ethics.

I agree with this, but maybe collective ethics like solidarity is what its all about.

Impersonal ethics involves making ethical decisions for other people, or making pronouncements that certain things are definetely wrong regardless of the circumstances, like Tony Bawbag and his minions. Who both make these pronouncements and are definetely wrong regardless. :D

Hi

Bodach gun bhrigh you say:

Class struggle would be great if it ever actually happened, but it doesn't look too likely at the mo.

What about the student movement in France, the metal workers movement in Vigo Spain or the workers' revolt in Bangladesh? Don't these gladden you heart? And these are only the most recent expressions of the resurgence of class struggle.

These struggles have been powerfully characterised by a determination not to submit to the attacks of capital, solidarity and discussion; all of which are central to the morality of the proletariat.

I suppose I consider myself an "anarchist" because in today's society, it is now socially acceptable (even encouraged) to con, lie, cheat and generally live by parasitic values. Believe me I know, after leaving school I worked in various offices as a temp - deception IS encouraged, especially in call centres. :twisted:

I could not live with myself if I accepted this as part of my life.

Not to mention the fact that any taxes I pay may contribute to buying weapons and all sorts of nasty things in the name of "democracy".

I CHOSE a moral way of life because I personally believe humans function better as GOOD people. I don't need laws to tell me right from wrong, watching He-Man taught me all that as a child!

I offer no elaborate political agenda, in fact I beleive agendas are generally bad. I don't like to label myself - I am just a human being who is just trying to live right. 8)

For me, morality feels like my only lifeline in this world. I do not feel oppressed by my own moral values, as it is a choice, a reason to exist, even a path to feeling free - and besides, it feels damn good to do good. :mrt:

That's why i'm here in this forum with you - because I see immoral things all around me every day and I don't know what to do to make them go away or escape somehow. :confused:

Sometimes I think we may need a major evolutionary change before things get any more pallatable in the world. Until then, it will be our morals against their bullshit. :@:

They have the guns. If the shit hits the fan, they will use them. For me the only way to true freedom is morality.[/b]

If ethics is entirely socially constructed and imposed on the individual it could perhaps be seen as oppressive.

But what if the ethical instinct does not originate in an imposed set of norms and values, so much as the evolutionary evolved social instinct of the human at work emotionally and through reasoning.

For example, emotionally, it could be the ability to empathise with others so as to percieve how you would feel if put in their situation, causing us to experience the pain of others as out own pain.

Logically, it could be the realisation of our dependence on others to supply our own needs. That is the realisation that:

* We need to work together as a society, and so it must be in everyone's interest to do so. Actions which take advantage of others undermine this, leading to social breakdown, and an absence of the cooperation needed to ensure everyone (ourselves included) has an enjoyable life.

* What is individually logical, can be collectively destructive when carried out by all individuals, threatening the individual wellbeing of yourself and others.

* Social norms evolve from observations of what is common behaviour, so therefore to murder somebody makes murder more acceptable, and increases the risk that you yourself will be murdered.

* If I can abuse another human being, the conditions that allow that abuse to occur exist, and therefore there is a strong possibility that I or those I care about will suffer similar abuse. Therefore it is more in my interest to work to make such abuse impossible, the first step being not to do it myself.

Hows that for a non-oppressive basis for morality?

Paddy G - A great first post. Welcome to the boards!! I agrees!!! 8) We will talk I'm sure often and anon about how to maintain our integrity and sense of self in a corrupt world.....

Paddy G I wuld probably consider your view of morality, as far as I can understand it, to be closer to what I defined as ethics earlier on.

* We need to work together as a society, and so it must be in everyone's interest to do so. Actions which take advantage of others undermine this, leading to social breakdown, and an absence of the cooperation needed to ensure everyone (ourselves included) has an enjoyable life.

* What is individually logical, can be collectively destructive when carried out by all individuals, threatening the individual wellbeing of yourself and others.

* Social norms evolve from observations of what is common behaviour, so therefore to murder somebody makes murder more acceptable, and increases the risk that you yourself will be murdered.

* If I can abuse another human being, the conditions that allow that abuse to occur exist, and therefore there is a strong possibility that I or those I care about will suffer similar abuse. Therefore it is more in my interest to work to make such abuse impossible, the first step being not to do it myself.

I broadly agree with this, I would add that the individual suffers due to empathy when they breach their code of ethics.

One of the problems with morality is that it permits people to circumvent ethics.

I'm gona be a right little shit here, not read the thread properly, and post a quick glib comment cos I'm gonna have to get back to work. :P

Morality, in its most commonly known format, is inherently oppressive in that it is a state of conflict between 'good', and 'bad' actions/thoughts/states-of-being blah blah blah.

However, I see nothing wrong with oppressing some aspects of behaviour in humans, it is merely which aspects which need to be decided on, dependent of course on context.

Well, I would definetly guess, that alot of morality is reactionary.

Anyone want to sugest where morality comes from?

It's basis is in the social nature of the human species.

Alf

It's basis is in the social nature of the human species.

No, its not directly Alf, and if it is it is only in a very indirect way. Morality, the idea that there are certain universal rights, and wrongs, is actually the result of the domination of society by one particular class. It draws upon the social nature of the species, and then uses it to construct a tool of class domination.

If we were to talk about a communist morality (which actually I don't like the idea of), it would be very different from the present day 'universal' morality.

Dev

This is a big discussion, and one that the ICC has thought a lot about recently. There is a brief account of this in the article on the Congress of our section in France (French ICC website), which we will be translating soon; later we will be publishing more extensive contributions on this question. The rejection of all morality was typical of the post-68 reaction against Stalinism, with its mirror-image of classical bourgeois morality, but it was totally ignorant of a whole tradition in the workers' movement which raised the issue of morality and ethics, such as Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Roland Holst, Kropotkin, Trotsky, Pannnekoek....generally speaking, this tradition concluded that the proletariat does in fact have its own morality which runs counter to the hypocritical morality of the ruling class.

Lem's question was 'where does morality come from'. Unless we think it comes from a divine source, it must have its origins in man's social nature. Above all, it resides in the basic ties of solidarity without which no society can function. In primitive communist society this kind of morality was fairly 'spontaneous', and even derived from man's instinctual life. With the rise of class society, morality of course gets annexed by the ruling class and is distorted for its own ends, but it does not become entirely divorced from human solidarity and so reduced to mere hypocrisy. For one thing, it is 'preserved' and even advanced in the struggle of the exploited classes against their situation (eg, in the Biblical prophets who stood for the oppressed against the oppressors, or the Spartacus rebellion); at the same time, ethical ideas/ideals can also be developed by representatives of the ruling class, in particular when they express a progressive social system. For example, ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle made real contributions to our understanding of ethics, detaching it from supernatural origins to a large extent.

Totally agree with Alf's post.

Morality is nothing other than the unspoken rules by which any given society functions. Like all ideas it has its own history and its development is a product of and factor in the overall evolution of society.

Up till now, humankind has submitted unconsciously to the moralities created by its own social activity, just as it has submitted to the economic formations that arise from its productive activity. Part of the process towards the formation of communism will the formation of a morality based on the conscious assimilation and synthesis of previous moral principles and their rational application in the new society. In this sense, I think we can move on from both the instinctive, animal morality and the oppressive moral codes that have been a feature of human society until now and create a truly human and liberating morality.

I think it is useful to differentiate between ethics, born of reason or mutuality, and morals created by elites as a response to the social crises brought about through the depredations of the very hierarchical structures that those elites seek to preserve.

The breakdown of the norms of "organic" communities under the pressure of hierarchically generated disaster has led elders, priests and kings to promulgate laws or moral codes that have been all about restricting human behaviour and spreading the idea that we're all fundamentally bad and need a constant guiding hand to stop us murdering one another.

If you believe in the superiority of co-operation and equality of outcome as a principle of social organisation then you don't need morality, you just need to move towards the new society. An ethos that reflects social reality will arise; crime will be reduced almost to vanishing point and we will behold the manifestation of the truth that freedom is both education and ethics enough.

No more stone tablets!

Agree with Ned and Jefs posts.

Jef you are right - there is great pain in having to circumvent ones own ethics in order to survive in a corrupt system; a system in which immorality disguised as morality is endemic and integral.

Ned you are right - the r/c operate by "divide and rule". They spread the lie that we cannot survive without their "protection" - yet it is they who cause the most harm. They hurt us in the guise of "helping" us - this is how most abusive relationships flourish.

I find this inversion of truth both fascinating and despicable. For me the greatest challenge is liberating myself and helping others to liberate themselves by consciousness-raising - so that peeps come to realise - they need us - we don't need them.

Love

LW X

there is great pain in having to circumvent ones own ethics

Yeah, I guess that this is an important point if you want a difference beytween morality/ethics - ethics (being about virtue) are your own, in the sense of belonging to you, in a way that morality doesn't.

Just out of interest, does anyone here believe in moral realism - that whether something is right or wrong is objective i.e. inheres in the object.

Is this reactionary?I can't decide if its immoral, seems kinda self defeating or something to think that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

Choose a theory!

Alf

This is a big discussion, and one that the ICC has thought a lot about recently. There is a brief account of this in the article on the Congress of our section in France (French ICC website), which we will be translating soon; later we will be publishing more extensive contributions on this question. The rejection of all morality was typical of the post-68 reaction against Stalinism, with its mirror-image of classical bourgeois morality, but it was totally ignorant of a whole tradition in the workers' movement which raised the issue of morality and ethics, such as Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Roland Holst, Kropotkin, Trotsky, Pannnekoek....generally speaking, this tradition concluded that the proletariat does in fact have its own morality which runs counter to the hypocritical morality of the ruling class.

Lem's question was 'where does morality come from'. Unless we think it comes from a divine source, it must have its origins in man's social nature. Above all, it resides in the basic ties of solidarity without which no society can function. In primitive communist society this kind of morality was fairly 'spontaneous', and even derived from man's instinctual life. With the rise of class society, morality of course gets annexed by the ruling class and is distorted for its own ends, but it does not become entirely divorced from human solidarity and so reduced to mere hypocrisy. For one thing, it is 'preserved' and even advanced in the struggle of the exploited classes against their situation (eg, in the Biblical prophets who stood for the oppressed against the oppressors, or the Spartacus rebellion); at the same time, ethical ideas/ideals can also be developed by representatives of the ruling class, in particular when they express a progressive social system. For example, ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle made real contributions to our understanding of ethics, detaching it from supernatural origins to a large extent.

The rejection of all morality was typical of the post-68 reaction against Stalinism

As you know, Alf, I am not quite that old even if you are. I don't want to get into a semantic argument about it. What I said was that a universal morality doesn't exist, and is used as a tool of class domination. I think that this is the same line that Panekeok argued. If you define morality as an attempt to codify 'universal' 'rights, and wrongs', it is clearly a false construct.

Devrim

Devrim

What I said was that a universal morality doesn't exist, and is used as a tool of class domination

Relativist :x :wink:

as an attempt to codify 'universal' 'rights, and wrongs', it is clearly a false construct

Moral realism is more interesting if you look ar terms like 'better' or 'healthy' or 'tasty' or 'fun'. If you a realist you think that the tastiness of a strawberry inheres in the object, if your an anti-realist that the tastiness of a strawberry is your emotional reaction to it.

Nihilism in this respect is a bit crazy - statements 'dying for your country is bad' or 'my friend is nice' are simply false (though of course 'genocide is fun' is would also be false).

Are all good revolutionaries nihilists? Dosn't this mean that almost everything that they say is false :wink: - as its very easy for value judgements to slip into speach.

IMO if you stated that morality is bad, then it would have more weight if this was objectively so, and it wasn't just your emotional reaction to it. Makes you sound like a hysetric, really, that you have to go around telling everyone your emotional reaction to things.

Sorry if I don't make sense. That would be "foolish" of me.

I don't really understand philosophical discussion. We have a philosopher in our group (well at least a philosophy teacher :wink: ). I will ask her about it when she comes back to Ankara.

Dev

Hmm. In that case I might have been talking total shit :|

a couple of texts that may be of interest:

Kropotkin, Peter "Ethics - origin and development" (unfinished) pub by prism press in the 1970s.

Seidler, Victor J. "Recovering the self - morality and social theory" Routledge 1994/5

(am reading the latter -quite interesting - takes on marxism and feminism, foucault and nietzsche, durkheim and weber among others.)

Kropotkin, Peter "Ethics - origin and development" (unfinished) pub by prism press in the 1970s.

Good call!!!!

I actually managed to get an original on loan of this via the wsm library and was very very pleasantly surprised by it. Kropotkin still has his basic thesis of ethics being social and instinctual and going right back to social behavior in animals.

But he defends it very well in depth and refers to must be nearly 100 different philosophers in his defense. The breadth of his reading is staggering. I was even more shocked (in a real happy way) to have him bigging up Nietzshe quite early on

- mostly in reference to religion and lefty sorry ascetic priestly types sorry hermits/monks sorry political activists....

ah ya know the type I mean

He only got to the eighteenth century in his survey - before he was cut off (by death unfortunately)

pity.

One very interesting figure he bigs up is the Earl of Shaftesbury:

(http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/shaftes.htm)

I think some measure of ethics is needed just to survive.

:rb:

Hi

Very interesting discussion.

Devrim, your point

Morality, the idea that there are certain universal rights, and wrongs, is actually the result of the domination of society by one particular class. It draws upon the social nature of the species, and then uses it to construct a tool of class domination.

And your brief reply to alf, I think misses the central point that is being made: that morality is a part of the social being of humanity. Morality is the 'rules' that hold a society together. In your conception morality appears appears to be the ruling class's manipulation of man species being. However morality existed before class society, it is a central part of all social groups and is based upon the fundamental human attribute of empathy, i.e., being able to understand that others thinking and feel. The ability to build a cohesive social groups has to have been part of the evolutionary development of the human species. Empathy is seen in an embryonic form in other species, but the point about human empathy is that it is conscious. Thus, if morality existed before class societiy, and in all 'primative' societies there are 'rules' 'tabus' 'rituals' etc that enable the group to function as a collective body, then we cannot simply see it as a tool of the ruling class. As alf says the ruling class takes theses and turns them into means of oppression. It is not a question of universal morality, but of human nature.

wannatodiveintoyourocean I have not read Kropotkin, Peter "Ethics - origin and development" but it is meant to be good. His range of knowledge was impressive. Katusky in his Ethics and historical materialism mentions Kropotkin's work in the introduction. Kautsky's book is also very good on this question. As is his "the foundations of christianity" where he makes the point that ethics did not raise until ancient greece (here he may have missed out its development in China, but I do not know if there was a specific ethical philosophy in ancient China, does anyone know if there was such a school ?), because it was only in this class society that humans needed to develop a 'scientific' understanding of the complexity of the social relations that had begun to unfold in such a complex society.

ernie

Devrim, your point

Morality, the idea that there are certain universal rights, and wrongs, is actually the result of the domination of society by one particular class. It draws upon the social nature of the species, and then uses it to construct a tool of class domination.

And your brief reply to alf, I think misses the central point that is being made: that morality is a part of the social being of humanity.

Morality are the 'rules' that hold a society together.

In your conception morality appears to be seen as being something invented by the ruling class. Morality existed before class society, it is a central part of all social groups and is based upon the fundamental human attribute of empathy, i.e., being able to understand that others thinking and feel. The ability to build a cohesive social groups has to have been part of the evolutionary develoment of the human species. Empathy is seen in an embryonic form in other species, but the point about human empathy is that it is consciouss. Thus, if morality existed before class societiy, and in all 'primative' societies there are 'rules' 'tabus' 'rituals' etc that enable the group to function as a collective body, then we cannot simply see it as a tool of the ruling class. As alf says the ruling class takes theses and turns them into means of oppression. It is not a question of universal morality, but what is human nature.

your brief reply to alf, I think misses the central point that is being made: that morality is a part of the social being of humanity.

This is in danger of becoming a semantic argument. I defined what I understood by 'morality' and then you defined it differently. Everything that you go on to say comes from that definition. As for your suggestion that morality proceeds class society. It doesn't if you follow my definition.

The Oxford dictionary defines it as:

Oxford

morality

• noun (pl. moralities) 1 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 2 moral behaviour. 3 the extent to which an action is right or wrong. 4 a system of values and moral principles.

Which seems to me to be quite ambigious.

You write that:

Morality existed before class society, it is a central part of all social groups and is based upon the fundamental human attribute of empathy, i.e., being able to understand that others thinking and feel. The ability to build a cohesive social groups has to have been part of the evolutionary develoment of the human species. Empathy is seen in an embryonic form in other species, but the point about human empathy is that it is consciouss

It could easily be argued that what is observed as 'empathy' in other species is in fact genetically programmed self interest. Richard Dawkins writes interestingly on this in 'The Selfish Gene' (Ch. 10 'Nice guys finish first'). I see biological imperative as much more important in the development of empathy than it is generally given credit for. Yes, to a certain extent human empathy is conscious, but that doesn't mean that it is something that is not a development of something that is already 'hardwired'.

If what you are saying by:

morality is a part of the social being of humanity

is that Humans are genetically programmed to cooperate, I think that it is obviously true, but I don't think that that is what you are saying as then it would be part of the genetic make up, not the 'social being'.

Devrim

P.S. Jasamine, our philosopher, will be back in town soon. I have just spoken to her on the phone, and she will have a few things to say on this.

P.P.S. Kautsky's 'The Foundations of Christianity' is actually quite an interesting book, Jack.

P.P.P.S.

Morality are the 'rules' that hold a society together.

Grammar is the set of rules that holds the language together, Ernie :wink:

Hi

Devrim, yes there are rules of grammer and I had edited this out, but for some reason it did not repost.

The question you raise about empathy hardwired or not, is an important question, because it poses the question of whether social being is in part genetic. Here the question of not posing things in black and white terms is important. There has to be a genetic aspect of social being, because social being cannot be separated from biological. The question is how much is due to genes and how much is due to nuture. The old question of whether homo sapiens are a blank slate or not, comes in here. Dawkins is very interesting but his emphasis on self-interest is open to question. There is clearly a very stong element of this in evolution, but for any form of human society to develop there has to be the ability to put the interests of the group first.

On the scientific basis of self-interest, there is a whole bebate on this in scientific and other circles. De Maas, as Dutch, scientist (I think he is a zoologist) in a book - I cannot remember the title now- argues that there is empathy amongst animals. He gives the example of the observation of a group of chimps in the wild, one of the group saw a bird trapped in the branches at the top of a tree, climbed the tree and freed the bird: not an act of pure self-interest. Another example, I am not sure if it is De Mass, is an experiement done on Resus monkey's. Two monkeys were placed in separate cages but could see each other. One Monkey was shown that if he pulled a lever he would get food but at the same time the other monkey received an electric shook. The monkey with the lever refused to pull it despite going for hours without food.

Whether empathy is hard wired, the neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio in his book Looking for Spinoza, discusses his experiements around the frontal lobe and its relationship to empathy. He shows that damage to part of the frontal lobe leads to a lose of empathy.

Sorry for the long reply, but this whole question is such great interest. It is intimately connected to way in the ruling class which have tried to distort the question of human nature. It is also related to the question of crude materialism or historical materialism. This whole discussion was of great interest in the workers' movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries . Now we need to reanimate it and integrate the developments in science. It is essential to struggle against the bourgeois ideology that humanity is marked by its selfishness and inhumanity.

There is no problem with long replies. I think that it is an interesting discusion.

You write:ernie

Dawkins is very interesting but his emphasis on self-interest is open to question. There is clearly a very stong element of this in evolution, but for any form of human society to develop there has to be the ability to put the interests of the group first.

Have you actually read Dawkins, Ernie, specifically the chapter of 'The Selfish Gene' that I referred to. If you haven't, I think you will find it very interesting.

I think that Richard Dawkins gets a lot of bad press, a fair proportion of it from people who haven't read his work, and are put off by the title of that book.

I don't think that he has any 'emphasis on self-interest'. The term 'the selfish gene' is not meant to denote that individuals are selfish. It is purely an analogy, and as he himself admits often a misunderstood one for the process of evolution. Andrew Brown wrote:Andrew Brown

"Selfish," when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.

Dawkins doesn't suggest that genes are selfish. How could they be they are not even conscious? Nor does he suggest that people are. What he does suggest is that there is a process which naturally selects the most successful genes through a massive series of generational sieves. If the most successful genes are the ones that foster cooperation, then those are the most successful genes. In fact in the chapter I referred to Dawkins shows mathematically how jeans which encourage co-operation can be more successful in some circumstances than genes which encourage selfishness (used with its real meaning now). There is no contradiction between the existence of empathy among animals, and this empathy having a genetic base. In fact the opposite is true. One would be extremely surprised by displays of empathy among animals that didn't have a genetic base.

You write:ernie

The question you raise about empathy hardwired or not, is an important question, because it poses the question of whether social being is in part genetic. Here the question of not posing things in black and white terms is important. There has to be a genetic aspect of social being, because social being cannot be separated from biological. The question is how much is due to genes and how much is due to nuture. The old question of whether homo sapiens are a blank slate or not, comes in here.

I think that the old 'nature verses nurture' question has been clearly shown as a false one, and isn't really worth discussing anymore.

Devrim

Hi Devrim

I thought I had, but some time ago. Just shows how one's memory can be false, I will certainly go back and read it. I certainly remember reading the blind watch maker, and being very impressed.

This is an interesting discussion, and I think we are coming from the same angle. We are obviously agreed that empathy is part of the genetic make up?

Does this mean that on the question of origins of morality we may be agreed that mortality is not a form of ideology but a fundamental aspect of human society? I have a feeling it does.

On the nature v nuture question, it may appear to be not to be worth discussing, we are pretty much agreed, but what about others reading the threads?

The idea of the blank slate is still a strong idea, there have been strong hints of it in the discussion on the thread. Behind the idea that morality is simply an invention of the ruling class, one can sometimes find this idea. Does anyone defend the idea of the blank slate? If so it would be good to hear what you think about these last few interventions.

An aspect that we have not taken up yet, is why is it necessary to have morality -in the way we have defind it- in order to help cohere society? Whilst there are very powerful social tendencies in human nature, there are still the presence of more 'primitive' forces, such a self-preservation, selfishness etc. Morality can thus be seen as an expression of the growing consciousness of emerging humans of the need to cohere society, though this was at a level of tabus etc. The full flourishing of this growing conscious control of collective and individual life will be under communism, where we will scientifically understanding and fully investigate what appear to be the blind laws of social and individual life This will mean consciously assimilating all of the heritage of human history so far. In the process of struggling for communism there is an important aspect of consciously struggling against the degeneration of social relations by dying capitalism. Whilst rejecting the hypocritical morality of the bourgeosie, we have to replace this with the morality of the proletariat: solidarity, dignity, idignation faced with oppression exploitation and cruelity, hospitality, warm heartness, generosity of spirit, truthfulness, responsibility and a rejection of selfishness, irresponsibility, heartlessness, pettiness, the rejection of study and thinking, a refusal to accept the 'norms' of capitalist society. This means a permanent conscious struggle by the class, its political organisation and individual militants.

Hello everyone, I thought I invite myself to join this discussion. Moral philosophy, applied in particular to political philosophy is something of a special interest of mine.

Apologies in advance for this long and self-indulgent post. I've tried to make reading it as easy as possible by breaking it down into 12 ideas. Certain technical terms I've used may be used in a different way than you are used to but I hope that when this has happened my meaning is still clear. Bullet-points are not intended to show strict logical thought.

[list][*]Moral theory and ethics are the same thing - a list of rules on how to behave in public, society, community, etc.[*]Moralising is imposing a set of rules on a group of people to control their behaviour[*]Rules can be imposed on you or self imposed[*]You are 'free' when you set the rules, not so free when you agree to the rules and less so when the rules are imposed on you[*]Groups need rules to survive[*]The purpose of these rules to make living in a group possible[*]Living in a group makes for a happier life than living alone and is preferable to suicide[/list:u]

I imposing rules

If you lived alone on an island with no other sentient being there would be no morality. That is, there would be no code of conduct - you can do what you like, when you like. It is possible for you to impose a set of rules for you to live by (presumabley to make your life more enjoyable) but these wouldn't be moral rules. If you prefer Space Raiders to Monster Munch you might impose a rule on yourself that you always eat the former, this isn't a moral rule.

If you didn't live alone, you might impose a rule that you always share your Space Raiders or that everyone that wants them has an equal chance of having a packet. This is a moral rule, if you believe that this is how humans ought to behave around maize snacks.

If, this post is turning into a Rudyard Kipling poem (that kicks ass), a group of humans is to survive and become a community then the members must agree on a set of rules on how to behave. Every functioning community has them. Including this forum. For instance, there are rules on how to conduct discussions in threads such as no personal attacks, flaming, etc. The rules exist to protect the community. If people were permitted to flame, spam, cross-post, multiple-post, hijack, and so on the forum (and with it the community) would break down.

In the same way, a community needs codes of conduct (a set of rules) on what is the right and the wrong way to behave. A lot of these rules are implicit. When I go into a shop I don't need a sign telling me to queue. I don't need a sign telling me not to push people who get in my way or not to urinate at the dinner table. This wasn't always the case.

Personally, when I was a child my parents and teachers told me not to push to the front of queues or push other children out the way, and not to do certain things at the dinner table. At an earlier time in our history there were written rules on such things. Take table manners for example, in the 13thC. you were told not to spit on the table at dinner. A hundred years later you were required not to offer someone food you'd already taken a bite out of. In the 16thC. there were rules draw up on going to the toilet - find a suitable place, don't go in hallways and staircases, or in someone's cupboard. 100 years ago farting at the table was outlawed even if it meant holding it in!

All these rules remain but are no longer signposted and after the very early years of childhood are rarely mentioned. The rules exist to make community life easier. If you had a mate who regularly spat on the table and shat in your cupboards at home, and pushed people out the way and to the front of queues when you went out - how long would that friendship last?

II obeying the rules

Rules limit people's freedom. They exist to tell a person what to do and often when to do it as well. Take chess, for example, if you agree to play a game with someone you will be limited on what to can do and when you can do it. You can only move a piece when it is your turn, you can only move it in a particular way and under particular conditions. If a player, or both players, stop obeying the rules then the game breaks down and no longer exists. If the rules change then you're playing a new game (think of football turning into rugby). If there are no rules then there is no game.

Staying with chess, imagine that a player started to cheat. He's disobeying the rules for his own advantage. Rules exist to limit behaviour. If you can break the rules and get away with it then you will almost certainly be better off for it. However, if your opponent successfully cheats as well then you are no longer better off. And you are no longer playing chess.

Community rules are the same. If you can find a way to evade the rules (and not get caught, assuming there is a punishment) then you will be better off. This is because rules are a burden.

Rules are there to stop you acting in a way you would if you were free to choose.

However, if others start breaking the rules, you will no longer be in a better position. If no-one follows the rules you will no longer be in a community. Take waiting in a queue, for example. No-one likes waiting in a queue (unless the person in front of you is particularly attractive). In an ideal world there would never be a queue wherever you went (and always a queue when a particularly attractive person is in the shop).

[list][*]If you didn't live in a community then there would be no queues. But that is not only because there is no-one else to form a queue - there is nothing to queue for.[*]In a community, there is a rule that you must wait your turn for certain things. Communities can not function without this rule.[*]If the rules break down, the community breaks down.[/list:u]

If you want to live in a community, you will have to follow community rules.

III rules tell other people what to do

Have you noticed that whenever you have a discussion on morality the conversation always goes something like this:

So you say that it is morally right to do so-and-so. But what about the case of that-and-that? What would you say someone should do then?

When we talk of moral rules we are usually talking about limiting other people's behaviour. Sure, we agree to be bound by the same rules, but we are the ones laying down the law. It's one thing to agree to rules you impose on yourself but a different thing entirely to agree to rules imposed on you by others.

IV It's good to follow rules!

Community rules are imposed on us. They tell us what to do (and sometimes when to do it as well). However, most of these rules are a good thing. We value living in a community and if we didn't follow the rules we would lose that which we value. Therefore, we are better off by following the rules.

When I play Chess, or Oware, I don't feel less free in a significant way. I'm happy to follow to the rules. Following the rules is part-and-parcel of playing the game. The same goes for queuing up for something or restraining myself from killing someone who gets in my way. Obeying rules like these is part-and-parcel of living in a community. If i'm not obeying these rules then I'm not living in a community.

V rules and laws

Please take it into account that I am not talking about obeying laws. The rules I'm discussing are moral rules. It's not against the law to be unpleasant to people, or take legal advantage over someone, to treat others as a means to an end, and so on. Community rules in the sense I'm talking about, are the ethics of community living.

VI Morality is a good thing

Morality is a good thing. It is merely a code of conduct, a way of humans to successfully live together in groups. Everybody seeks happiness, when we act we have happiness in mind. We are either seeking to maximise pleasure or limit suffering. Moving from a state of isolation to group living is a step in the direction of increased happiness. Community living increases happiness and is therefore a good thing. Morality keeps community working and so it to is a good thing.

VII Who's morality?

If we've accepted that we need moral rules and that they are a good thing. And I hope we have. How are we going to decide what those moral rules actually are? The rules I've mentioned are relatively simple. In a very small-scale society they would probably comprise most of the moral rules. However, modern communities are huge and complex. How do we decide what the code of conduct should be? What do we do when things get really complex?

Enter the moral theories. Welcome Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Authenticity and on and on.

VIII Who's rules and why obey them?

We've agreed that rules are necessary and good because they help communities to exist. However, when a rule is imposed on you, you are going to want to know why it's being imposed. And the answer: you have to do this to help the community to exist probably won't be enough for you. Especially, if you have your doubts about the rule.

The theories mentioned above provide the thinking behind the rules. They also give you the tools to challenge the validity of the rules and the power to create new improved rules. And give people good reason to accept these new improved rules.

If everyone in the community has the power to think about the rules, to understand the thinking behind them and to accept that the thinking is sound, then they know who's rules they are (The Community) and why to obey them (the thinking is sound).

IX Alternative to morality

One alternative is to scrap all rules and abandon the community. However, if you want a community but you don't want morality you can have non-moral rules instead.

Moral rules have authority. You obey them because you believe not only that you will be in a worse position if you don't - but also that you ought to follow them. You believe that it is wrong not to follow the rules.

Non-moral rules have power. You obey them because you believe that you will be in a worse position if you don't.

Instead of moral rules, you community could simply have a system of punishments. For example, if someone tells a lie they could have their tongues torn out. Or if they piss in the cupboard they could have their penis lopped off. Punishments such as these existed in the Middle Ages. People didn't following community rules because they thought it was the right thing to do. They did so to avoid horrific punishment. The only thought behind not doing such-and-such is that the punishment if you get caught is much worse than what you achieve if you get away with it.

X Using morality

Hopefully, we've agreed that morality is a good thing. That is it better than the alternatives, which are no community or community-controlled-by-force. Setting the rules is not easy. Complex communities are... complex and so are the moral questions thrown up. However, this is an inescapable fact of life. The world isn't perfect and life isn't easy. There would still be moral problems in an worldwide anarcho-commune - hopefully genuine moral-thinking will find the best solutions.

Morality is not always used genuinely as we all know. Moral thought, while in itself is a good thing, provides the perfect tool for someone to grab power. As I've discussed in (IV) we generally internalize moral rules as part-and-parcel of community life. I don't worry about the limits imposed on moving the pieces when I play chess, and I don't stop to think about not killing someone for getting in my way. I accept that there are certain ways of acting and do so without thinking about it too much.

I mentioned in (I) when I talked about table manners, that you don't really have to be reminded of the rules much after your early years. It is in these formative years that you learn and internalize your moral thinking. As you grow up you develop your moral imagination.

Considering that moral rules are rules on how to behave, if someone wanted to control how you behave, throwing in a few 'moral' rules that get you to behave in a way advantageous to them would be a good way of going about it.

Remember that a moral-community is populated by people who accept the rules and choose to follow them. People in a community-controlled-by-force need to be constantly reminded of what not to do in horrific ways. Obviously, it is much easier to control a society in which people chose to obey the rules rather than one in which you (and you agents) have to enforce the rules.

Taking this into account, if some group wanted to create a communties rules so that they were put at a advantage (to everyone else's disadvantage) they would do best to create some 'moral' rules for people to obey.

XI Divide and rule

If you want your group to have more advantages in a community then you need to make sure another group (or groups) are disadvantaged. Let's have a look at a ridiculously simplified example:

[list][*]People decide that it's worng to treat someone else as a means to an end.[*]People like orgasms. If your end goal is to achieve an orgasm you can have sex with someone.[*]It's wrong to use someone else's body as a means to achieve your orgasm.[*]You can't just have sex with someone if you want to have an orgasm.[*]Some rules on when and in what circumstances it's acceptable to have sex are created.[/list:u]

So if you feel randy you can't just fuck someone, you have to ask if they want to have sex first. Then you can't ask just anybody. The person you ask needs to be able to give informed consent, and so on. Then there is the risk of pregnancy, STDs, etc. etc. At the end of the day a set of perfectly reasonable and good rules or limits are placed on sexual activity.

ENTER (ha-ha) the bad guys. They see this moral activity occuring and throw in their own suggestion - you can't do it with someone of the same sex, homo-sex is out.

If this 'moral' rule is accepted one group in the community will have an unfair limit imposed on their sexual freedom. They will be at a disadvantage. A disadvantage that can be exploited by the bad guys.

Remember if this 'moral' rule is accepted then the baddies don't need the power to shove red-hot pokers up arses or rip out tongues to get people prejudiced against homosexuality - people will interalise and accept the idea that homosexuality simply is wrong and homosexuals are bad for the community.

Moral ideas something that can be used devastingly when in the wrong hands. Moral ideas are extremely powerful and once accepted are difficult to shed. Genuine moral rules are good and should not be abandoned. Divisive 'moral' rules are a community evil, should be sought out and dropped like their hot.

XII Is morality oppressive in and of itself?

[list][*]Community living is the kind of lving that provides humans with the most happiness.[*]Happiness is a good thing. Community is a good thing.[*]Life outside of community is less happy. Communities should be preserved.[*]Morality (moral rules) make living in communities possible. Without morality, communities fail and break up.[*]Morality is a good thing.[*]Comunities-controlled-by-force are an alternative to moral-communities or non communitiy living.[*]Comunities-controlled-by-force provide less opportunites for happiness than moral-communities.[*]Moral-communities are better than Comunities-controlled-by-force[/list:u]

Let's take a breather... moral-community and community are to be consider the same thing from now on.

[list][*]Living morally and living in a community are the same thing.[*]People accept moral rules as simply the conditions of community life.[*]All rules limit behaviour. Moral rules limit behaviour. A limit on behaviour is a limit on freedom.[*]Community living, limits the freedom of the members of that community.[*]A person is better off without the limits but is worse off if other are also without limits.[*]People are better off if everyone obeys community rules.[*]Living morally and living in a community are the same thing.[/list:u]

take a deep breath...

[list][*]Moral rules are accepted because they provide the best solution to moral problems.[*]Moral theories exist to find geniune solutions and provide the reason for accepting and obeying moral rules.[*]The more complex the community, the more complex the moral problems and solutions.[*]Devious groups can take advantage of complex situations to suggest false moral solutions.[*]Moral rules are accepted as right and good.[*]False 'moral' rules will also be accepted as such.[*]Devious groups can cleverly use false morality to gain an advantage in the community.[*]Their advantage necessarily puts others at a disadvantage.[/list:u]

Conclusion Morality is oppressive in itself. Morality is a set of rules and all rules are oppressive. However the limits imposed on us by morality make community living possible. We must be willing to accept certain limits to get the benefits of community. These limits are not significant, they are in fact part-and-parcel of community life. Therefore, in everyday terms, Morality is not oppressive.

Morality is often usurped by power-hungry element however. These people attempt and often succeed in getting power and advantage by getting people to believe in false moral rules.

This is why is it important for people to keep upto date with moral thinking, which isn't hard. I'm with Camus, when morality starts getting over-complicated it's usually because someone is over-complicating it. Why over-complicate things? Hmmm....

ernie

Does this mean that on the question of origins of morality we may be agreed that mortality is not a form of ideology but a fundamental aspect of human society? I have a feeling it does.

I don't think that morality is the right word for what you mean, and I have some problems with the way that this is being formulated. I think that morality is a form of ideology, but I do agree that co-operation is a fundamental aspect of human society, and its roots are in our genetic make up.

ernie

On the nature v nuture question, it may appear to be not to be worth discussing, we are pretty much agreed, but what about others reading the threads?

I think that it has been scientifically settled that there is an interactive process between the two, and that neither is predominant.

I think that one of the problems with philosophy is that at one point it was inseparable from science. Newton considered himself to be a philosopher. Now as science has become more advanced, and can settle lots of ideas that philosophy used to speculate about. Philosophy has to a certain extent become redundant.

Maybe it would be a good idea to revive the idea of the Libcom reading group, and do 'The Selfish Gene'.

Devrim

ernie

here he may have missed out its development in China, but I do not know if there was a specific ethical philosophy in ancient China, does anyone know if there was such a school

How about Confucianism?

Hey I’m very impressed by this thread and the depth of the discussion….

Devrim: Now as science has become more advanced, and can settle lots of ideas that philosophy used to speculate about. Philosophy has to a certain extent become redundant.

Well the best philosophy rightly (if you ask me)defends and distinguishes itself by its “redundancy” as far as practical problems are concerned.

Even better its open to all to express an opinion..

Science, of course, used to be about making limited statements and then attempting to prove em via a rigorous process of experimentation – now, apparently, it has the answer to everything.

Mind you most working scientists I meet seem to still go for line one above.

Some even seem to love philosophy – what losers eh!

That having been the Darwin/Kropotkin/Dawkins group/kin/species selection line on the origin of morality is as good as any and seems to, at least, explain how we come with a certain social moral sense “built in”.

But just knowing the origin doesn’t necessarily tell you much about how things are now under late capitalism or how they could be under anarchism.

Surely no absolute moral system (even and especially absolute relativism) is going to be of use to us. So how, practically, do we run things. I think, unfortunately in many ways, it will always have to be on a case by case basis. But lets try and get down to practicalities and a topical issue: informers! Specifically in a revolutionary struggle were an informer must be dealt with but it’s NOT an immediately life threatening situation for “our side”.

Suggestions?!?!?

Ps: Confucious and his shower weer just a bunch of wanna be advisors to rulers. Daoism is far more worth a look. Google the Tao do ching – great little read.

another author who might be of relevance:

Matt Ridley

http://www.mattridley.co.uk/

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human

Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code

-------------

as for 0001 contribution I'd distinguish between "morals" as in necessary rules for social collectivities and "conventions" which are far more arbitary questions of taste and etiquette.

wannatodiveintoyourocean

That having been the Darwin/Kropotkin/Dawkins group/kin/species selection line on the origin of morality is as good as any and seems to, at least

Dawkins doesn't follow the 'group selection line'. He thinks the gene is the basis selection is the basis of selection. I haven't read Kropotkin on evolution. I would like to but never seem to find the time. Actually, I have never read Darwin either.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong though, the group selection idea has been largely discredited.

wannatodiveintoyourocean

Devrim: Now as science has become more advanced, and can settle lots of ideas that philosophy used to speculate about. Philosophy has to a certain extent become redundant.

Well the best philosophy rightly (if you ask me)defends and distinguishes itself by its “redundancy” as far as practical problems are concerned.

Even better its open to all to express an opinion..

Science, of course, used to be about making limited statements and then attempting to prove em via a rigorous process of experimentation – now, apparently, it has the answer to everything.

Mind you most working scientists I meet seem to still go for line one above.

Some even seem to love philosophy – what losers eh!

I did qualify it with 'lots of ideas', and 'to a certain extent'. :wink:

Devrim

Mal they are probably all excellent books - I know I used to be in to the Red Queen stuff and a lot of population/evolutionary genetics.

Of course the great work on the discovery of DNA was the really difficult x ray crystallography by Rosalind Elise Franklin who gets written well down the list - no surprise there..

but

but

but

Exactly which one of those book will give me guidance in my "informer question"

Just knowing the physical/biological origin of a “social sense” doesn't really answer any of the actual moral questions.

If there are answers (and I doubt there are many absolutes – even murder can be hedged with conditions/justifications self defense etc etc) they will be socially negotiated - though exactly how I don't know!

Hi

Demogorgon303 I will look at Confucianism and wannatodiveintoyourocean I will have a look at Dao, however I do not agree with your dismissal of Confucianism

Confucious and his shower weer just a bunch of wanna be advisors to rulers

you could say that about some of the ancient greeks as well. This type of argument lead nowhere, it is clear that Confusus was not a communist, but what he had to say about morals and ethics helps to understand how these questions were understood in ancient china.

Devrim, the reading group suggestion is very good. What is it about the way we formulate the question that you have problems with?

wannatodiveintoyourocean

Ps: Confucious and his shower weer just a bunch of wanna be advisors to rulers. Daoism is far more worth a look. Google the Tao do ching – great little read.

Lao Tzu was just a bumbling idiot, haven't you read The Western Journey? :wink:

But seriously, I think Confucianism - whatever its origins - constitutes a major influence on China's ethical thought. It's the closest thing to a philosophical school that ancient China had. I'm not saying Taoism is not important, of course. I just think that it's probably closer to, say, Buddhism in terms of origin and approach whereas Confucianism is a smidgen closer to Greek Philosophy (although much less radical and far reaching) which was what I think ernie was asking for.

But, hey, I could be wrong, I'm no expert.

Devrim

: Dawkins doesn't follow the 'group selection line'. He thinks the gene is the basis selection is the basis of selection.

I know that but selection at a gene level as opposed to at the level of individual often implies statistically that family, kin group are the only way to “save” or, at least, maximise the transmission of the most shared DNA (as opposed to the “DNA’s container eg the organism or even us!)

– This implication is one of the few things I like in him and it implicitly backs Kropotkin and gives socialibility among animals a basis in biology

– Gould would agree here to – actually the actual “scientific” differences between Gould and Dawkin are relatively minor.

I did qualify it with 'lots of ideas', and 'to a certain extent'.

Point taken – I some times over react if only to provoke a row!!

Confucionism was the sophism (and actually socrates and co are quite unfair to the sophists!) of its time if you ask me - it is awful stuff - FIERCE conservative and concerned with keeping things going. But have a look your self - the annelects are on line peg it into google. The thinking is that most public confucionists were Taoists in private.

Taoism is meta phyisical anti realism writ large so yeese mightn't go for it. Try the Art of War - great auld read (pity the Americans didn't take a gander before invading Iraq - you'll find they break almost every one of the little recomendations as to how to conduct a successful combat)

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

wannatodiveintoyourocean

Devrim

: Dawkins doesn't follow the 'group selection line'. He thinks the gene is the basis selection is the basis of selection.

I know that but selection at a gene level as opposed to at the level of individual often implies statistically that family, kin group are the only way to “save” or, at least, maximise the transmission of the most shared DNA (as opposed to the “DNA’s container eg the organism or even us!)

I don't agree.

wannatodiveintoyourocean

– This implication is one of the few things I like in him and it implicitly backs Kropotkin and gives socialibility among animals a basis in biology

– Gould would agree here to – actually the actual “scientific” differences between Gould and Dawkin are relatively minor.

The differences are minor in that they are both evolutionary biologists, and the media tended to overplay the disagreements, but there are still some important differences.

I think its more the implications that Dawkins draws from his science that can be problamatic.

The kin selection thing is just simple maths if you acept selection at a gene (eg DNA) level

- I'll row it out with ya another time (or even tomorrow on the boss's internet dime!)

- Gotta run unfortunately

Krossie

I think that morality is a form of ideology, but I do agree that co-operation is a fundamental aspect of human society, and its roots are in our genetic make up.

Morality is a form of ideology in that it consists of a bunch of ideas relating to the social needs of a group of people.

Any society (human or otherwise) requires co-operation. That society is a group which work together to achieve a particular goal. In the case of Human Society that goal is a happy life.

Human beings could not have survived as solitary creatures. If the human was not a social animal none of us would be here to today.

Human beings live in groups, groups require co-operation to exist. Co-operation requires a set of rules. That set of rules is either morality or rule by force.

Human's, supposedly, don't break society rules because they believe it's wrong to do so. Animals don't break (their) society rules because they will be physically harmed or killed for doing so.

Morality is nothing but a set of rules that keep groups of humans together. Without these rules there can be no co-operation and no society.

Oppression comes in when people decide what the rules are. Morality can not be oppressive (other than in the fact that all rules are necessarily oppressive) but applied morality could well be oppressive. Especially when it comes to enforcing moral rules.

wannatodiveintoyourocean raises a moral question:

informers! Specifically in a revolutionary struggle were an informer must be dealt with but it’s NOT an immediately life threatening situation for “our side”.

Suggestions?!?!?

This is a question of how far is it morally acceptable to go in enforcing moral rules. It is in answerimg moral questions such as these that we discover how oppressive our morality is.

If there is no such things as 'morality' on the other hand, there is no question. Dealing with informers would be the same kind of thing as dealing with a tree that has fallen and blocked the road, or anything else that gets in the way. There would be no notion of 'acceptable behaviour' in dealing witrh the problem - anything that solves it is fine. Drive around the tree, cut it up, ignore the informer, kill the informer - whichever is most efficient.

Hi

What a great discussion and process of clarification.

On Dawkins and Gould, I have read both and not really understood the differences. The only real differences that I can see is that Gould is inclinded to draw on wider social theories, though Dawkins's unweaving the rainbow - what I have read of it- places science in its wider and artistic context. So a good discussion on what he really says will be interesting. All the more so given the weight of irrationalism in society.

0001 overall there is a real level of agreement. However,

Morality is a form of ideology in that it consists of a bunch of ideas relating to the social needs of a group of people

is too sweeping a statement. For Marxism ideology is an expression of false consciousness, the distortion of thinking by class society consciously or not. In the investigations into primitive communism by the workers movement, and above all by Marx and Engles the expressions of consciousness are not seen as ideological because it has not been distorted by class society.

0001 also raises the question of ends justifying the means. This is a very important question and one that pre-occupied the workers' movement. Dietzgen wrote some very interesting analysis of this question, but I do not have it at hand, though the main thrust is that the means used have to be compatible with the ends.

[quote="ernie"]Hi

What a great discussion and process of clarification.

On Dawkins and Gould, I have read both and not really understood the differences. The only real differences that I can see is that Gould is inclinded to draw on wider social theories, though Dawkins's unweaving the rainbow - what I have read of it- places science in its wider and artistic context. So a good discussion on what he really says will be interesting. All the more so given the weight of irrationalism in society.

0001 overall there is a real level of agreement. However,

Morality is a form of ideology in that it consists of a bunch of ideas relating to the social needs of a group of people

is too sweeping a statement. For Marxism ideology is an expression of false consciousness, the distortion of thinking by class society consciously or not. In the investigations into primitive communism by the workers movement, and above all by Marx and Engles the expressions of consciousness are not seen as ideological because it has not been distorted by class society.

ernie

On Dawkins and Gould, I have read both and not really understood the differences

It is difficult to explain if you are not conversant with the literature. It is all about 'punctuated equilibrium', and the Neo-Darwinist synthesis. There is no argument about the basics of natural selection, but it is an argument about how natural selection works. Basically Dawkins said that Gould is pretending that things that fit into the synthesis are somehow 'revolutionary', and Gould said that Dawkins is a 'reductionist'. There is an unofficial Dawkins site with a lot of documents about the controversy: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/the_g_files.shtml

ernie

What is it about the way we formulate the question that you have problems with?

I am not completly sure Ernie. I am very uncertain about the way you use the word 'morality', but I would have to read what you have to say about it in detail before I really comment. I think that you are understating the evolutionary base, and overstating the 'moral' one. If the ICC are discussing it you can send any texts to me at [email protected] .

wannatodiveintoyourocean

I think its more the implications that Dawkins draws from his science that can be problamatic.

The kin selection thing is just simple maths if you acept selection at a gene (eg DNA) level

Yes, it is, and I do. Also though you have to accept that altruism exists in animals that do not recognise their kin, and must have evolved in those animals. In species with low population densities, it is quite likely that any other member of the species that a creature meets, is kin. Therefore, the argument is that kin selection goes beyond a purely kin basis, and into empathy with the rest of the species as a whole.

0001

wannatodiveintoyourocean raises a moral question:

informers! Specifically in a revolutionary struggle were an informer must be dealt with but it’s NOT an immediately life threatening situation for “our side”.

Suggestions?!?!?

This is a question of how far is it morally acceptable to go in enforcing moral rules. It is in answerimg moral questions such as these that we discover how oppressive our morality is.

If there is no such things as 'morality' on the other hand, there is no question. Dealing with informers would be the same kind of thing as dealing with a tree that has fallen and blocked the road, or anything else that gets in the way. There would be no notion of 'acceptable behaviour' in dealing witrh the problem - anything that solves it is fine. Drive around the tree, cut it up, ignore the informer, kill the informer - whichever is most efficient.

Actually that is what I would tend to go for, 'whatever is most efficient'. I don't actually like the word efficient, and would go more for 'whatever best served the struggle'

Just a little off the point, has anybody read Giles Dauve/Jean Barrot's 'For a World without Moral Order': http://troploin0.free.fr/biblio/moral_uk

I posted a link when this debate started, but I think we lost a day's posts, and it is no longer there.

Devrim

has anybody read Giles Dauve/Jean Barrot's 'For a World without Moral Order'

Yeah I have. Made me think, I guess.

Rules limit people's freedom.

If you can only live in a community with rules (whioch is an interesting idea), and lets say you are more free in a community than by yourself, then it could be said that morality lets you be freed.

If you lived alone on an island with no other sentient being there would be no morality.

The point I was trying to make before, is morality is generally thought of as a subspecies of value - morality is moral values. The interesting thing, is that you would still have other values, like "tasty" and "boring" and even "good", on a deserted isalnd. Myself I see little difference between good as in a good strawberry and good as in a (morally) good action. So, I guess that I'm saying, that although there can be no real moral rules, something very close to morality will be present.

What about not being cruel to animals on this island, or not masturbating. Right or wrong, some people consider these moral rules - that they ought to obide by. Are you suggesting that these are just false, if they are not backed up by a need to live in a community. Strange, to say that the status of ethical statements (that moral statement A is false and B true) is on the basis of how the person grounds them (In God, in humanity, or in the need to live in a community).

What I'm getting to in a round about way, is that no-one has defended, or really attcked, the notion of objective morals - a topic I find very interesting - though I am no expert! This is close to, I think, Habermas's theory of communicative action, which I think, is a tool for him to show that some world views justifying ideology, are false, regardless of whether the people subscribing to the ideology believe so. The parallel to objective morality seems obvious. Then there are countless moral theorists who attempt to ground objective morality (e.g. that killing is wrong and people ought not to kill, regardless of their beliefs on the subject) in God, and countless theorists who try to ground objective mnorality in a secular manner (much more difficult).

IMO without some kind of objective values, even the ideal speach situation, you can not say that communism is better than capitalism, or that genocide is wrong, or it is bad to die for your country. These statements would just be meaningless. But I would have thought that it would annoy libertarians. Though someone does mention

false moral rules

difficult if morality is just a subjective feeling state.

Ok as I’ve stressed already the question of the origin of morality is of no huge importance for me. Certainly reduced explanations seeking lower and lower levels of “cause” are something I’m tired off and don’t particularly feel a need for. I’m not a total anti rationalist (yet!). But I don’t really see where this search for origin gets us either as anarchists or “philosophers of morals”

Are there are still eejits out there who still see themselves as “scientific socialists”!

But just to, very quickly, deal with this complete side issue as I see it:

1. On the level of “selfish” genes. Surely for example it is “worth it” on the gene level for a mother to feign injury and distract a predator for the rest of the family – even if she gets snaffled – 5 or 6 genotypes have a small chance to make into the future. Other wise she runs they become dinner – no transmission of genes what so ever.

Similarly for herd or swarm behaviour – which is very common in the animal kingdom.

This is not to deny the other side of the coin is that an injured animal may be kicked out of the heard and sacrificed to predators against it’s will!

But the idea of the survival of genes quite often implies as a strategy the apparently “altruistic” behaviour on an instinctual level witnessed by Kropotkin and more recent biologists some of whom are mentioned above. So a certain amount of fellow feeling may be selected for/programmed in.

So Dawkins gives it a bit of an under pining.

2. On the level of individual organisms. Population geneticists use game theory to come up with optimal competitive strategies for individuals. It turns out that if you use things like the prisoners dilemma but then iterate them over several generations surprisingly the “hawk” strategy isn’t the optimal one. What comes out ahead is one called tit for tat. Simply put this (for the prisoner’s dilemma) is that I don’t rat you out to the guards. Well I don’t unless and until you do it to me. Then I always do it! Now this is hardly pure altruism yet alone “a basis for morality” per sae. But it may explain, to an extent, some of our more social/cooperative instincts at a purely biological level. If that sounds confused there’s an excellent explanation here that even a mere philosopher could get:

Unknown Author, Evolutionary Stable Strategies,

http://www.urticator.net/essay/2/217.html

(I know cos we had it as a tutorial last year!)

Right lets move quickly to the important questions. People’s morality right now comes down to an immense and complex number of influences from genes to parents, religion, politics, friends, experience, society, schooling, advertising etc etc etc. It’s also changeable over time and people quite often “surprise themselves” Again I think the best route for us as anarchists will always have to be some non absolute moral system and things have to be taken on a case by case basis. Morality isn’t “given” fully wrapped up by science, politics, philosophy (any one for a wee drop of “categorical imperative”) or religion – it’s created actively and constantly. But how exactly that will happen is really quite a tough question.

– back to the informer – any takers? Devrims line that we should go for the most "efficient solution" is interesting - what is "most efficient" for the struggle - who decides and on what basis - these are the questions that need dealing with and which "origins" won't really help us with

non absolute moral system

Absolutely agree. In dealing with problems, like informers, I would guess that trying to maximize the good (strongly weighted towards moving the struggle forward, with a little consideration towards general sense of not causing too much suffering and death) would be an answer. In this respect, I see that someone who informs has forfeited solidarity.

Though I do think that huge amounts of suffering/death is not necessarily justifiable, and that its dangerous to think otherwise. Afterall, is it really just self interest that motiavtes us. Probably. Never considered it in my interests to commit overly indulgent acts of violence and suffering, doubt it ever will be.

Yes yes "non absolute moral system"...I am liking Lems views a lot tonight... :)

For me self-interest is not the primary driver - can it be for communists? Is it? A cue for another thread at some point me thinks...

wannatodiveintoyourocean

On the level of “selfish” genes. Surely for example it is “worth it” on the gene level for a mother to feign injury and distract a predator for the rest of the family – even if she gets snaffled – 5 or 6 genotypes have a small chance to make into the future. Other wise she runs they become dinner – no transmission of genes what so ever.

Similarly for herd or swarm behaviour – which is very common in the animal kingdom.

This is not to deny the other side of the coin is that an injured animal may be kicked out of the heard and sacrificed to predators against it’s will!

But the idea of the survival of genes quite often implies as a strategy the apparently “altruistic” behaviour on an instinctual level witnessed by Kropotkin and more recent biologists some of whom are mentioned above. So a certain amount of fellow feeling may be selected for/programmed in.

So Dawkins gives it a bit of an under pining.

2.On the level of individual organisms. Population geneticists use game theory to come up with optimal competitive strategies for individuals. It turns out that if you use things like the prisoners dilemma but then iterate them over several generations surprisingly the “hawk” strategy isn’t the optimal one. What comes out ahead is one called tit for tat. Simply put this (for the prisoner’s dilemma) is that I don’t rat you out to the guards. Well I don’t unless and until you do it to me. Then I always do it! Now this is hardly pure altruism yet alone “a basis for morality” per sae. But it may explain, to an extent, some of our more social/cooperative instincts at a purely biological level. If that sounds confused there’s an excellent explanation here that even a mere philosopher could get:

Yes, I agree with all that.

wannatodiveintoyourocean

– back to the informer – any takers? Devrims line that we should go for the most "efficient solution" is interesting - what is "most efficient" for the struggle - who decides and on what basis - these are the questions that need dealing with and which "origins" won't really help us with

Yes, I was aware of these problems when I was posting it. I think you are talking about it as a practical issue. I, however, was talking on a purely philosophical level. I was just saying that the needs of the struggle are the prime concern. Your question opens a lot of practical problems which I would prefer not to go into here.

Devrim

Lem

Though I do think that huge amounts of suffering/death is not necessarily justifiable, and that its dangerous to think otherwise. Afterall, is it really just self interest that motiavtes us. Probably. Never considered it in my interests to commit overly indulgent acts of violence and suffering, doubt it ever will be.

Lem, I don't think that it is the interests of the movement to commit 'overly indulgent acts of violence', and I think that historically you can see that the workers movement has never done this. Is it a question of whether it is 'justifiable' though, or is it just that 'indulgent acts of violence' don't serve the class struggle.

Devrim

Whats all this agreeing nonsense Devrim come now lets have rows!

Yes, I was aware of these problems when I was posting it. I think you are talking about it as a practical issue. I, however, was talking on a purely philosophical level. I was just saying that the needs of the struggle are the prime concern. Your question opens a lot of practical problems which I would prefer not to go into here.

Devrim

See, in my view, being a nietzschian/persepctivist and a bit of an existentialist it always comes down to practical individual issues at the end of the day. My sad history of political involvement also tends me to this belief. So every abstraction from "we are determined by are genes" (you didn't say that I know but I've met some close to this view!!) to the "needs of the struggle" comes down to practical problems.

There is no ansolute morality and anarchists should start to think seriously on the issues that will face us should we ever "get lucky" with this struggle.

On the level of “selfish” genes. Surely for example it is “worth it” on the gene level for a mother to feign injury and distract a predator for the rest of the family – even if she gets snaffled – 5 or 6 genotypes have a small chance to make into the future. Other wise she runs they become dinner – no transmission of genes what so ever.

But the mother runs a much lower risk of dying, and she won't (not that she really can) fight to defend her offspring if they are found.

There are of course many animals that will fight to the death to defend their young. Perhaps that is a case of morality surpassing logic. Whilst defending young is important due to hig infant mortality an adult capable of producing offspring is far more valuable and worth keeping alive. It can produce more offspring. Dependant young with no parent will die anyway.

I'm not sure about your view of evolution, if I've understood it correctly.

The biggest problem with evolution is that it does not do anything accurately or efficiently. For example sickle cell anaemia also gives protection against Malaria, there is never a single mutation that survives or not, there are hundreds, some survive, some do not, some go in pairs, others do not. Haemophilia, for example was never bred out. Evolution is a random process, one which we are now outside of and which we are actively subverting.

lem

If you can only live in a community with rules (whioch is an interesting idea), and lets say you are more free in a community than by yourself, then it could be said that morality lets you be freed.

lem I'm not sure that this makes sense.

What about... not masturbating. Right or wrong, some people consider these moral rules - that they ought to obide by. Are you suggesting that these are just false, if they are not backed up by a need to live in a community. Strange, to say that the status of ethical statements (that moral statement A is false and B true) is on the basis of how the person grounds them (In God, in humanity, or in the need to live in a community).

Well it is morally wrong, you don't train for the mile by doing sprints, you don't want to leave a comrade unsatisfied.

Lao Tzu was just a bumbling idiot

Not sure about that but people certainly like books full of truisms, especially if it is sold as mystical eastern wisdom.

Jeff:Whilst defending young is important due to hig infant mortality an adult capable of producing offspring is far more valuable and worth keeping alive. It can produce more offspring. Dependant young with no parent will die anyway.

Yeah fair points - I was sort assuming some of the young might be old enough survive - I mean this is quite a common strategy in nature (birds especially) - you could argue that its better that real genes go forward then a potential set survive to potentially breed

In most cases of course the injury feigner is going to get away with it and not get eaten and that may be its value.

Another issue is if she knew it was the last set of kids but obviously there's no "knowing" involved conciously

Any way my real point is simply that both "altruistic" and "selfish" behaviour form our "moral" perspective can be seen in nature

Krossie

lem I'm not sure that this makes sense.

I think it does, though it is badly worded, and a bit heavy handed. If you're only free in a community, and you can only be in a community if you have moral rules, then you need moral rules in order to potentially be free. You could almost say that freedom is an expression of moral rules iywim

Well it is morally wrong, you don't train for the mile by doing sprints, you don't want to leave a comrade unsatisfied.

I was trying to show that there could be moral rules on a desert (?) island

Moral philosophy, applied in particular to political philosophy is something of a special interest of mine.

Hi. That sounds interesting. What sort of questions are there on this topic?

Does no-one want to argue against objective morality? My understanding of subjective morality is that it cannot be valid for everyone (or it would be objective), and I would say that morality is universal in this respect, just there being no rule that applies in every situation.

Doesn't it bother people that when they say "scabs are bad" or "the holocaust was wrong" they are just expressing their emotions, and what they are saying isn't "true" - to say it is is just to assert your feelings again more strongly.

If there is no way of finding objective truth, then to disagree with someone is simply to disagree with their emotions (does that even make sense); how would anyone be able to convince anyone against burgulary if the rightness of it is just down to that persons response? Surely the answer to everything isn't to show that its not in the persons instersts, and wouldn't that rely on some kind of value external to the individual.

It seems a bit pesimistic, really.

well objectively something unethical is something that hurts an individual or society.

The is some difficulty in reconciling the two at times.

If you can only live in a community with rules (whioch is an interesting idea), and lets say you are more free in a community than by yourself, then it could be said that morality lets you be freed.

This is very different to what you said next

If you're only free in a community, and you can only be in a community if you have moral rules, then you need moral rules in order to potentially be free. You could almost say that freedom is an expression of moral rules iywim

Which is also wrong, if you use suppositions like this then you will end up able to say anything.

Let's say that Britain is a fascist state, if everyone was happy then that would mean that fascism is positive for the working class.

You can set parameters but bear in mind that they devalue your conclusions and sometimes prevent you reaching any.

I think that the argument you are looking for is that by protecting us from the excesses of other people's free will rule give us more freedom to exercise our own free will, even though it is limited. Which is true, although it does not have to be rules, my own conception of ethics manages this just fine.

Well it is morally wrong, you don't train for the mile by doing sprints, you don't want to leave a comrade unsatisfied.

I was just joking here lem, I need to make funny jokes or start using smilies to stop this confusion.

revol68

tell me Jef, how can there actually be an objective understanding of what is unethical?

How can one decipher that which "hurts an individual or society" without the subjective?

There is not a difficulty in reconciling the two at times, because there is no objectivity in the first place, the individual and society can not be crowbarred apart.

They cannot be crowbarred apart, but they are clearly seperate. For example I do not believe in the current treatment of premature babies, but few would argue for letting them die, even though that would benefit society and harm very few members.

Well nothing can ever be truly objective Revol, but that's a bit of a negative argument. It is hard to produce measures of pain and suffering or even of happiness/contentedness/unhappiness. However we can use psychology to work out things which would damage society.It's late and I have things to do tomorrow, so I'll take this up with you later.

Which is also wrong

:confused: Maybe someone else can help here, because I think that the deductive reasoning hearing is valid.

If you are free then you live in a community (no freedom otherwise)

If you live in a community then you are moral (no community otherwise)

Therefore if you are free you are moral.

Edit: I was, heavy handedly as I said, lifting points that a previous poster had made, and just asking if they still believe those points, considering the conclusion.

So you cannot be free without being moral

Let's say that Britain is a fascist state, if everyone was happy then that would mean that fascism is positive for the working class.

If you say that anything which makes the w/c happy is poitive for the working class, then the reasoning is absolutely guarntueed. You must have made a mistake in the definitions.

Not sure about people using shifting defintions like this 8)

So you are a moral objectivist then? Hmm, I wanted to be convinced otherwise. I had a compromise lined up already :oops:

Should be reading, really.

revol68

there is no objectivity in the first place, the individual and society can not be crowbarred apart.

It sounds a little as if you are substituting an objective morality with an intersubjective one. If the individual and society are inseperable, then what is good for one is good for society, and you would seem to be implying that the objective is replaced by subjective judgements brought into agreement. The response to this, and I don't know where it is supposed to lead, is that an objective medium between the two is required for this to happen.

This is where I bring up Levinas, again, and his view that objectivification is achieved through language - specifically the relation of the other through discourse, which is actually subtended by the ethical relation.

To be objective is to valid for everyone (including the other), so. through the conversation with the other, ethics becomes objective.

So, yeah, I agree that the subject and the other (or society) are inseperable in moral discourse; but that this requires an objective environment, and that the objective environment necessary for discourse, is, the ethical relation to the other (which, Levinas states, does objectify). IYSWIM

I really would like that to make sense.

As for the label, I don't see how discussion of it could be avoided since you called the thread - on a very atheist board - "Does evil exist?"

So are you a nihilist? Do you think that actions, can be good or bad? You don't come across as amoral when you talk about, say, anti-social criminals. In that case, why would "evil" have any less currency than "deeply unpleasent and wrong". IMO "evil" doesn't have to have religous connotations just because its a moral or ethical concept.

I think its worth pointing out that not all sociopaths are dangerous, and not all dangerous people are sociopaths. If you're talking about locking people up, I don't think it should be done under the pretence that they are somehow abnormal, rather that this is the practical way of peventing "evil" actions, actions that people agree cannot happen.

I do think that morality is an intersubjective phenomenon. If it isn't, why does anyone talk about what they like and don't like, ever, unless it has more validity; when mind states like like or disgust are shared, they become more objective or valid.

"People who sincrely believe that morality is bunk because free will is an illusion (Or because there is no God, etc.) must reject moral restraints for themselves, and refuse to criticise others for behaving dishonestly or in other ways people may find wicked". This is internal moral scepticism, it seems to be what the sceptics believe.

*Shrug*

Hi

Just because you can’t logically criticise dishonesty, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t punish it. Besides, there are good reasons why dishonesty should be punished other than the fact it is wicked.

Love

LR

If you had said "kill" and we were left to guess about the motive, then maybe. Otherwise the criticism is implied, IMO.

lem

Which is also wrong

:confused: Maybe someone else can help here, because I think that the deductive reasoning hearing is valid.

If you are free then you live in a community (no freedom otherwise)

If you live in a community then you are moral (no community otherwise)

Therefore if you are free you are moral.

Edit: I was, heavy handedly as I said, lifting points that a previous poster had made, and just asking if they still believe those points, considering the conclusion.

So you cannot be free without being moral

Let's say that Britain is a fascist state, if everyone was happy then that would mean that fascism is positive for the working class.

If you say that anything which makes the w/c happy is poitive for the working class, then the reasoning is absolutely guarntueed. You must have made a mistake in the definitions.

Not sure about people using shifting defintions like this 8)

lem, my example was to show that you can prove anything if you use false premises, I can't tell if you're joking, either way I don't think you're addressing the point. You've also changed the point yet again and your conclusion is still based upon premises that you have invented.

.

You can be free without living in a community, you can be immoral and live within a community. Are you just trying to creat a paradox? I would argue that a free society is entirely possible. There is a tacit assumption that you would have desires to break the rules. As long as I choose to obey the laws, or have no desire to break them, then I am entirely free. In a society composed of people who are ethical there is no need for laws as no one would act in an 'immoral' way. Freedom is not about actually doing things, it is about having the ability to do them.

Should be reading, really

me too

This mixup is too boring to explain :|

revol68

sorry jef but you can't live outside a community, unless you want to be the UNA bomber, even then he was educated in a family and community.

Humans outside of communities would not survive, and certainly couldn't develop language skills. To be human is to be already born into a social world, and therefore born into a moral one.

Effectively yes, but I was responding to Mr lets create a thought experiment and funnily enough one of the parameters is actually the conclusion, so perhaps I got a litle sloppy.

Please don't tell me you thought his arguments resembled something convincing.

revol68

well when he said "if you are in a community you are moral" i took it to mean that you are a moral agent ie you are judged and judge, not that you were morally good, you could be immoral but not amoral.

I'm glad to see you giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but it might be the wrong time. your interpretation has some mileage, although it is fairly obvious,.

It is possible to live outside of a community all you have to do is find an isolated spot and live there on your own. If there is no other living thing capable of feeling anything (that is, animals) then you can do nothing which is morally wrong.

This type of life is almost completely irrelevent to Anarcho-communist thought since anarchist-communism is a political philosophy or set of rules on how societies should be organised. A person living in isolation is not a society and needs no rules.

Objective morality, subjective morality and moral relativism seem to be confused in this thread.

To be a true moral relativist you must believe that something is morally wrong for someone somewhere (in space or time) and - the exact same thing - is morally right for someone else, somewhere else.

A real-world example of moral relativism would be the idea that it is morally acceptable for someone who held the honour-system of morality to kill a family-member (who brought shame on the family) but the same thing is not acceptable for someone who has a western set of moral values. If you believe it's OK to some people to kill their daughters for getting pregnant outside of marriage but not acceptable for others, then you are a moral-relativists.

Someone who believes that morality is universal believes that the same rules apply to everyone. If it's morally wrong for me to do it then its also morally wrong for you.

Subjective morality is often confused with moral relativism but is usually used in opposition to objective morality. If morality is not objective then it must be subjective.

Morality doesn't have any objective facts. If I want say that it is hotter today than it was yesterday, all I need to know what temperature it is today and what it was yesterday. If today is 30 and yesterday was 29 then I can make my claim, and if challenged prove my point by referring to the objective data - the weather report.

If I want to say that torturing people for fun is morally wrong, then I don't have any objective facts to back me up. I can provide tons of evidence that torture causes suffering, etc. But none of these facts prove that torturing people for fun is wrong.

In a similar way, I can't objectively prove that the cars you see in the road in front of you are actually there. When you go out of you way to avoid them, you do so because you believe, and can't not believe, that they are really there and will cause you harm if they hit you.

Consider the statement It is wrong to cause a person unnecessary harm you can not prove it is a fact but it's pretty difficult to make yourself believe that it is false.

Humans beings generally can't just make up fundamental moral principles and make themselves believe it. In the same way that you can't one day decided to believe cars don't exist. The nazis, for example, didn't beleive it was OK to torture human beings - they made themselve beleive some people weren't actually human beings (so it was OK to torture them). Almost all atrocities carried out by people weren't done so because they didn't beleive in fundamental moral principles, they beleived these moral 'facts' weren't applicable.

Morality is not objective but this doesn't mean that:

i. People can simply decide what is or isn't morally right

ii. Some things are morally wrong for some people and not others.

It's impossible to be born outside of a community but it's not impossible to move somewhere and live on your own (although it will be pretty hard finding somewhere with no other living things). If it's always morally wrong to kill an animal for fun, then the isolated person has the potential to do something morally wrong as soon as he finds an animal.

The question is what could a person living alone, away from all other sentient creatures, do that was morally wrong?

Moral philosophy, applied in particular to political philosophy is something of a special interest of mine.

Hi. That sounds interesting. What sort of questions are there on this topic?

The questions raised are about how you can organise society in a way that is morally acceptable. For instance, what limits on freedom can a community morally impose on its members, etc. At the moment, I'm particularly interested in the lengths society can go to in enforcing moral rules.

0001, I thought you were going to define subjective and objective morality. I'd be interested to see the results.

Humans beings generally can't just make up fundamental moral principles and make themselves believe it. In the same way that you can't one day decided to believe cars don't exist. The nazis, for example, didn't beleive it was OK to torture human beings - they made themselve beleive some people weren't actually human beings (so it was OK to torture them). Almost all atrocities carried out by people weren't done so because they didn't beleive in fundamental moral principles, they beleived these moral 'facts' weren't applicable.

This is as much moral relativism as anything else.

It's a basic interpretation of "moral", in a existentialist sense.

OK, I meant that your answer wasn't adding too much and it certainly requires a leap of faith to get to there from lem's position, I think he was trying to give us the paradox that rules make us free.

well actually since it takes such a long time for humans to reach adulthood, it is actually all but impossible to live outside a community. You may move there but your very sense of self is created within society.

It is practically impossible to raise oneself. It is also up for debate as to whether someone who cannot speak is actually human, as they will lack the ability to perform the tasks we believe seperate us from animals.

0001, I thought you were going to define subjective and objective morality. I'd be interested to see the results.

Incidently, I tried a few pages ago - goodness that inheres in the object/in the subject, or a subjective feeling state versus ratioanlly defensible true or false. This is from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy

It is also up for debate as to whether someone who cannot speak is actually human, as they will lack the ability to perform the tasks we believe seperate us from animals.

This is clearly madness.

At the moment, I'm particularly interested in the lengths society can go to in enforcing moral rules.

The danger being some type of proto-fascism, no?

Someone who believes that morality is universal believes that the same rules apply to everyone.

Levinas thinks that to be objective, is to be universally valid.

Objective morality, subjective morality and moral relativism seem to be confused in this thread.

Wiki says that relativism, is a type of subjective morality.

At the moment, I'm particularly interested in the lengths society can go to in enforcing moral rules.

I don't see that there is anything about moral concepts that make them any more rationally enforcable, defensible maybe. How do you jump from one to the other? So that, I see societies role, more, as prevention and coping. Maybe, if thats workable. I don't see that any super free society would be enforcing moral rules, on poeple.

brief intro to feral children:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children

lem

It is also up for debate as to whether someone who cannot speak is actually human, as they will lack the ability to perform the tasks we believe seperate us from animals.

This is clearly madness.

You're lucky you're pretty :P

It's an extreme view certainly. Humanity is a construct within the symbolic order, something that they have not entered, they are therefore not human. I was being a little flippant, but I'l defend it for now.

You could also argue, in a similar vein, that they do not have human brains as they do not have our psychological structures.

Jef Costello

lem

It is also up for debate as to whether someone who cannot speak is actually human, as they will lack the ability to perform the tasks we believe seperate us from animals.

This is clearly madness.

You're lucky you're pretty :P

It's an extreme view certainly. Humanity is a construct within the symbolic order, something that they have not entered, they are therefore not human. I was being a little flippant, but I'l defend it for now.

You could also argue, in a similar vein, that they do not have human brains as they do not have our psychological structures.

They may not b e l o n g within the symbolic order, but I don't think that it cannot be applied to them. The simple reductio ad absurdum, is that we can treat people who can't communicate more as well as we wish, or chop them up and eat them if we feel like it. This i s madness, Jef :P