Upcoming Events

International | Anti-Capitalism

no events match your query!

New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Maradona: the fragile god of the Global South Thu Nov 26, 2020 16:25 | amarynth
Football deity played on the global pitch non-stop, a wild life of dizzying highs and demonic lows forever in the public eye By Pepe Escobar with permission and cross-posted with

offsite link Israel Enjoys Last Weeks Of Love With Trump. Azerbaijan Controls Kalbajar District In Karabkah Thu Nov 26, 2020 14:45 | amarynth
South Front On November 25, Azerbaijani troops entered the district of Kalbajar in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The district was handed over to Baku under the ceasefire deal reached between Armenia

offsite link Pennsylvania State Legislature Holds Public Hearing on 2020 election Thu Nov 26, 2020 01:09 | The Saker

offsite link Trump?s last hurrah?! Wed Nov 25, 2020 22:45 | The Saker
[this analysis was written for the Unz Review] There seems to be a quasi consensus that Trump will not prevail and that Biden and Harris will get into the White

offsite link Why Did RT Hire Liberals That Are Bringing Harm to Russia? (Ruslan Ostashko) Wed Nov 25, 2020 17:55 | Leo V.
Translated and captioned by Leo. Guess who started the cycle of documentaries about the ?main people of the country? on the state channel RT Russia? From the editor-in-chief of the

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link David Quinn’s selective tolerance

offsite link A Woulfe in judges clothing Anthony

offsite link Sarah McInerney and political impartiality Anthony

offsite link Did RTE journalists collude against Sinn Fein? Anthony

offsite link Irish Examiner bias Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link The Party and the Ballot Box Sun Jul 14, 2019 22:24 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link On The Decline and Fall of The American Empire and Socialism Sat Jan 26, 2019 01:52 | S. Duncan

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Marx And Morality

category international | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis author Monday January 11, 2016 20:33author by Paddy Hackett Report this post to the editors

Morality based on materialist conditions

Society determines the character of culture.

Society determines the character of culture, consciousness and morality. Capitalism, then, determines the nature of morality. Consequently it provides the conditions that enable us to condemn the exploitation of labour power as morally wrong. If exploitation is morally wrong then there is a necessity to eliminate it and replace it with social conditions that are exploitation free. In this sense we can say that there is a materialist basis that justifies condemning exploitation and alienation as morally wrong.

author by Mike Novackpublication date Sat Jan 16, 2016 01:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

To 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.

.

author by Paddy Hackettpublication date Sun Jan 17, 2016 21:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

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.

author by Mike Novackpublication date Tue Jan 19, 2016 19:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

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.

 
© 2001-2020 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy