North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty
Anti-Empire >>
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Top Scientists Confirm Covid Shots Cause Heart Attacks in Children Sun Oct 05, 2025 20:31 | imc
Fraud and mismanagement at University College Cork Thu Aug 28, 2025 18:30 | Calli Morganite
Deliberate Design Flaw In ChatGPT-5 Sun Aug 17, 2025 08:04 | Mind Agent
AI Reach: Gemini Reasoning Question of God Sat Aug 02, 2025 20:00 | Mind Agent
Israeli Human Rights Group B'Tselem finally Admits It is Genocide releasing Our Genocide report Fri Aug 01, 2025 23:54 | 1 of indy
Human Rights in Ireland >>
How Small Wins Could Save the Government Sun Oct 19, 2025 19:00 | Joanna Gray
The Government is floundering like a sulky teen, but tackling small wins ? from tidying high streets to fixing DVLA chaos ? could help rebuild its confidence, suggests Joanna Gray.
The post How Small Wins Could Save the Government appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
No Kings, No Thrones, No Crowns? No Problem Sun Oct 19, 2025 17:00 | Dr Roger Watson
The US may be shut down, but in DC the National Guard outnumbers protesters, and as Dr Roger Watson notes, streets once full of tents and beggars prove Trump actually gets things done.
The post No Kings, No Thrones, No Crowns… No Problem appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Jewish Lawyer is Questioned by Police Over Wearing a Star of David Necklace That ?Antagonised? Pro-P... Sun Oct 19, 2025 15:16 | Richard Eldred
The Met Police are embroiled in yet another two-tier policing row after a Jewish lawyer was held for nearly 10 hours over alleged Public Order breaches for wearing a Star of David necklace at a Kensington protest.
The post Jewish Lawyer is Questioned by Police Over Wearing a Star of David Necklace That ?Antagonised? Pro-Palestinian Protesters During Demo appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans Must be Allowed to Attend the Aston Villa Game on November 6th Sun Oct 19, 2025 13:00 | Jack Watson
Aston Villa's ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans reeks of anti-Israel politics, not concerns over safety, argues Jack Watson, who says Birmingham officials and an MP with pro-Gaza ties have let prejudice trump fair play.
The post Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans Must be Allowed to Attend the Aston Villa Game on November 6th appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Labour ?Tears Up Islamophobia Definition? Amid Free Speech Concerns Sun Oct 19, 2025 11:00 | Richard Eldred
Labour has ditched its old Islamophobia definition after concerns it could curb free speech. The party now prefers "anti-Muslim hate".
The post Labour ?Tears Up Islamophobia Definition? Amid Free Speech Concerns appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Will intergovernmental institutions withstand the end of the "American Empire"?,... Sat Apr 05, 2025 07:15 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?127 Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:38 | en
Disintegration of Western democracy begins in France Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:00 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?126 Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:39 | en
The International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism by Amichai Chikli and Na... Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:31 | en
Voltaire Network >>
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (3 of 3)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3To give a simple example (from what you said)
A is immoral (that given as true) is INSUFFICIENT all by itself to derive B is obligated to do something about A (assuming that B personally isn't doing A, etc.)
"A is immoral" is a statement.about fact, an "is" statement. "B should do something about that" is a "ought" sort of statement.
You need an "axiom" here, relating at "is" to the "ought". For example, you COULD have something like "If X is wrong, then even if personally innocent of X, ought to do something about it." Now I'm not going to argue for or against particular axioms of that sort, just going to point out that the moral philosophers of this world aren't in agreement. Lots of "schools" out there.
But you aren't going to get anywhere with pure materialism. All "is" statements". Even Marxist moral philosophy is going to need some "oughts". If this isn't making any sense to you, I suggest going back to Ethics 101. The necessary 'axiom" relating "is" to "ought" is NOT going to be a materialist statement.
.
Mike: But you aren't going to get anywhere with pure materialism. All "is" statements". Even Marxist moral philosophy is going to need some "oughts".
Paddy: It is not going to need “an ought” because the conditions for the elimination of a fact that is morally wrong already exist and are developed within capitalism as a social system. This means that objective conditions exist for the replacement of capitalism with communism. In a sense this is a socio-ontological matter.
Morality is just a form of condemnation –that capitalism is wrong. Once it's moral nature is established then the moral fact can be eliminated. The problem is a subjective one: the failure of the working class to develop this moral consciousness –class consciousness. The internal materialist or objective conditions already exist.
But really there may be no help for you but biting the bullet and taking a course of the Ethics 101 sort.
You think you can get from "X is bad" to a REASON why you should do anything about X just from the "X is bad"
WHY? WHY should something being bad be a REASON for you to do anything? Suppose instead we had a statement "X is blue". Does that give you a reason to do anything? Both are stating a factual condition. Neither sasy anything about your actions.
Now suppose you have a statement "If X is Z, you should eliminate X" Do you notice something about that statement, that it has BOTH and "is" and an ought"? That means if you have these statements:
1) If something is bad, you should work to eliminate it.
2) Capitalism is bad.
Conclusion: You should work to eliminate capitalism.
But while statement "2" above is a statement in the realm of factual statements, statement "1" was not. It states a relationship within the moral realm of discourse. It is NOT a "material" statement.
Could I make a suggestion. The left tradition did not come into existence with Marx, it pre-existed. And among the precursors were some who some in ethics. So why don't you look up "utilitarianism. Like I said elsewhere, I suspect you could base morality for Marxists with most schools. But historically, there was a relationship between the utilitarianism and the pre Marx left.