[Left Behind]

I'm curious as to what normative ethical systems people conceive of supporting their political systems. Since political and moral philosophy are often closely conjoined I was wondering what specific supporting connections people draw between their ethical and political systems.

For example, I consider act utilitarianism, an ethical system which defines the rightness or wrongness of an action on the basis of the happiness/pleasure or unhappiness/pain it causes, to support socialism (even though I am not a complete utilitarian). This is due to the simple fact that a member of the proletariat will receive far more happiness from a given value of wealth, then a member of the upper class. If a poor individual receives a million dollars, he will be far more appreciative then a rich man receiving a million dollars (this example need not be applied to money specifically, it could be applied to a vast range of goods) because to the poor man this money is life changing whereas to the rich man it is merely another penny. For this reason socialism, because it will ensure that those on the lower end of society will receive more and those on the upper end will receive less, will be considered moral under utilitarianism. This might not be true if under other ethical systems though.

[Decky]

What advances the position of the working class is moral, that which holds back the working class is immoral. It is simple and it works.

[Zamuel]

I'm curious as to what normative ethical systems people conceive of supporting their political systems. Since political and moral philosophy are often closely conjoined I was wondering what specific supporting connections people draw between their ethical and political systems.

Anything that keeps the monkeys in their cages is fine with me ...

Zam

[The Immortal Goon]

Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed; whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing invariable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.

But do not elementary moral precepts exist, worked out in the development of mankind as an integral element necessary for the life of every collective body? Undoubtedly such precepts exist but the extent of their action is extremely limited and unstable. Norms “obligatory upon all” become the less forceful the sharper the character assumed by the class struggle. The highest pitch of the class struggle is civil war which explodes into mid-air all moral ties between the hostile classes.

Under “normal” conditions a normal” man observes the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill!” But if he murders under exceptional conditions for self-defense, the judge condones his action. If he falls victim to a murderer, the court will kill the murderer. The necessity of the court’s action, as that of the self-defense, flows from antagonistic interests. In so far as the state is concerned, in peaceful times it limits itself to individual cases of legalized murder so that in time of war it may transform the “obligatory” commandment, “Thou shalt not kill!” into its opposite. The most “humane” governments, which in peaceful times “detest” war, proclaim during war that the highest duty of their armies is the extermination of the greatest possible number of people.

The so-called “generally recognized” moral precepts in essence preserve an algebraic, that is, an indeterminate character. They merely express the fact that man, in his individual conduct, is bound by certain common norms that flow from his being a member of society. The highest generalization of these norms is the “categorical imperative” of Kant. But in spite of the fact that it occupies a high position upon the philosophic Olympus this imperative does not embody anything categoric because it embodies nothing concrete. It is a shell without content.

This vacuity in the norms obligatory upon all arises from the fact that in all decisive questions people feel their class membership considerably more profoundly and more directly than their membership in “society”. The norms of “obligatory” morality are in reality charged with class, that is, antagonistic content. The moral norm becomes the more categoric the less it is “obligatory” upon all. The solidarity of workers, especially of strikers or barricade fighters, is incomparably more “categoric” than human solidarity in general.

The bourgeoisie, which far surpasses the proletariat in the completeness and irreconcilability of its class consciousness, is vitally interested in imposing its moral philosophy upon the exploited masses. It is exactly for this purpose that the concrete norms of the bourgeois catechism are concealed under moral abstractions patronized by religion, philosophy, or that hybrid which is called “common sense”. The appeal to abstract norms is not a disinterested philosophic mistake but a necessary element in the mechanics of class deception. The exposure of this deceit which retains the tradition of thousands of years is the first duty of a proletarian revolutionist.

[Left Behind]

What advances the position of the working class is moral, that which holds back the working class is immoral. It is simple and it works.

Is killing a member of the bourgeoisie immoral, if killing this individual will neither harm nor help the interests of the working class?

[Decky]

Individual acts of terror and assassination rarely do anything to help and just divert resources away from useful work. Killing a capitalists does what exactly? He will only be replaced by another one, Marxism is about replacing a system, removing an individual person contributes nothing whatsoever to that goal.

Anarchists would of course have you believe otherwise with their propaganda of the deed bullshit but they are wrong about that (and about everything). Looking at PoFos crop of anarchists confirms this (Goldberk for example is a manager for fucks sake).

[KlassWar]

Ethics are a poor subsitute for class interest: Morality is obsolete.

[Truth To Power]

What advances the position of the working class is moral, that which holds back the working class is immoral. It is simple and it works.

That's your ideology. He was asking about an ethical system that supports it.

Ethics are a poor subsitute for class interest: Morality is obsolete.

The rallying cry of those who intend to be unethical and immoral...

[Decky]

That is the moral position behind my ideology.

[mikema63]

Morality is a way to systematically codify our feelings about certain actions. E.G. murder is wrong = I don't like murder.

[Decky]

Nonsense Mike. You can enjoy something greatly and still acknowledge it is immoral.

[mikema63]

Human beings are capable of having conflicting feelings.

[Joe Liberty]

I'm curious as to what normative ethical systems people conceive of supporting their political systems. Since political and moral philosophy are often closely conjoined I was wondering what specific supporting connections people draw between their ethical and political systems.

Do you mean you're looking for a guiding principle on which one's political system is based? Because "advancing the working class" or some other such mission statement ain't a moral philosophy/principle, it's a desired outcome literally devoid of principle. Principles guide actions, not results.

As a libertarian, the main principle is that it's morally wrong to initiate force against someone else. The political applications flow from that.

[KlassWar]

Is killing a member of the bourgeoisie immoral, if killing this individual will neither harm nor help the interests of the working class?

If it does not advance the interests of the working masses it would be a pointless murder. In most civilized societies, useless murders are considered distasteful.

[Left Behind]

Do you mean you're looking for a guiding principle on which one's political system is based? Because "advancing the working class" or some other such mission statement ain't a moral philosophy/principle, it's a desired outcome literally devoid of principle. Principles guide actions, not results.

As a libertarian, the main principle is that it's morally wrong to initiate force against someone else. The political applications flow from that.

The proposition "to advance the working class is moral" logically implies the proposition "we ought to advance the interests of the working class" and therefore guides actions. A normative ethical system or principle is a system which guides what one "ought" to do in any given situation. While the advancement of the working class may not be a particularly sophisticated normative principle, it is a moral ought nonetheless. However you may be right in that such a moral principle should be derived from a principle with a more general scope.

On the subject of the initiation of force, what if it is the case that the initiation of force is neccesary to achieve a greater aim (as in, there is no alternative course of action to achieve the aim)? Do you see exceptions to your principle or is it absolute?

For example I can imagine a scenario in which a dying individual can only be saved by drug x, and the only way to procure drug x is through punching person y in the face, grabbing the drug and running off with it. In this example, the initiation of force has saved a life.

[KlassWar]

No morality involved whatsoever. We want the working masses to seize power because as members of the working masses, it's very much in our interest to put and keep our team in power. It's not exactly rocket science, and it doesn't require any philosophical mumbo-jumbo to be a coherent worldview.

[Left Behind]

No morality involved whatsoever. We want the working masses to seize power because as members of the working masses, it's very much in our interest to put and keep our team in power. It's not exactly rocket science, and it doesn't require any philosophical mumbo-jumbo to be a coherent worldview.

Well it can be expressed as a moral position and has been.

What advances the position of the working class is moral, that which holds back the working class is immoral. It is simple and it works.

[Decky]

The working class produce 100% of the benefits of civilisaion and they should enjoy everything they make, why should it go to bosses, shareholders and parasite fucking landlords?

[Zamuel]

Well it can be expressed as a moral position and has been.

What advances the position of the working class is moral, that which holds back the working class is immoral. It is simple and it works.

Soooo .... Murdering Jimmy Hoffa was a "Moral" act ...?

Zam

[Saeko]

https://tonysss.files.wordpress.com/201 ... rality.pdf