Philosophy Now Forum

a look at the macro and micro in life, suggests that
we are missing a piece of what is happening.....

Let us start with a couple of obvious things... that morality/ethics
are not a solitary idea... that ethics and morality are meant for
two or more people.... does Robinson Crusoe need a morality,
an ethics? clearly not..... one person living in isolation has no
need or desire for ethics, for a morality..... with one person,
it isn't necessary...... but two or more, yes, we have a need for ethics/
morality.... thus, showing that ethics, morality are communal,
collective, a mutual cooperative effort.... for there to be ethics, morality,
it requires a village....

to compare with Nietzsche, he thought that ethics of the modern age,
were corrupt because of the influence of Christianity..... sheep mentality,
or sheep morals were the bane of his existence..... ethics/morals weren't
decided by the lowest of lows, as Nietzsche saw the common crowd...

no, morals/ethics were impacted by the ''Ubermensch'' the superior ones.....
it is their ethics and morals that we should engage with because they
are the superior ones.....Morals, ethics flowed from top to bottom in
Nietzsche world, not bottom to top as it is in a democracy, or a modern
state/society....

We have spent the last 150 years working out what it means to be moral,
ethical in the modern world..... that has been the great crisis of philosophy
since Nietzsche.... take away god and religions, on what basis do we, can
we base our morals, ethics on? Part of the problem with modern philosophy
is that it has walked away from this point..... on what standards are we
to judge ethics, morals on? Is ethics, morals, based on individual standards,
or on community standards? Who judges what is moral and on what grounds
do they base this judgement on?

As I have pointed out that ethics, morals are not individually based,
they are collectively based... two or more people, that is
the beginning of morals, ethics...

Now let us take a side look at another modern topic, a related topic...
that of ism's and ideologies......the question I have is this,
is our economic system of capitalism, is that a moral, ethical system?
and if it isn't, I would suggest that it should be challenged by
ethical, moral concerns.....

What is the ethical, moral aspect of our modern isms?
Is democracy a moral, ethical matter? Is a dictatorship
an ethical, moral subject? What is the ethical, moral
consideration of communism? and what of the other isms
and ideologies? Are they too, ethical or moral subjects?
For example, the ism of Nationalism, where country comes first,
is that an ethical, moral ism? and if so, why?

Should we judge isms based on their moral, ethical basis?
Should we judge, say science on ethical or moral standards?
but one might argue that it is science itself that has a moral,
ethical basis, but the application of science.... applying the science
is where morals and ethics resides in that area....... not in the science
itself.... but it is not hard to miss the ethical considerations of science
in terms of various aspects of science, in medicine for example,
or in the application of vaccines... or even in the use of the
nuclear bomb..... was bombing Hiroshima, an ethical or moral act?
the basic premise of its use is that it killed lives
to save more lives... is that really an ethical standard we want to
practice? We kill 100 lives to save 101 lives, is that the ethical,
moral basis that we want to stand on?

we need to engage in ethical searching in terms of the isms
and ideologies that we have/practice in our modern world....
is this ism, say capitalism actually an ethical, moral ism?
The answer btw is no...... capitalism is not an ethical moral
standard on which to base our lives on......

We need to apply ethical, moral standards to all aspects of our lives,
politically, legally, scientifically, socially, economically and philosophically......
and we need to include our isms and ideologies that we practice....
is democracy really the best ethical choice we have in terms of the moral
considerations of politics? and we can include political and social
considerations in our thinking about what is moral and what is ethical?

Kropotkin

So in light of the prior post, is capitalism a moral,
ethical system? One might say, well Kropotkin, it
depends on what you mean by moral, ethical?

What is the value of being ethical, of being moral?
What its use in society, the state? Does being moral, ethical
have any value in our modern-day societies/states?

Kropotkin

"Is democracy really the best ethical choice we have in terms of the moral
considerations of politics?"

At the end of the day, unfortunately, yes. But only if everybody who votes on anything has a job, or else it's a fake democracy. In our country, which is a fake democracy, the upper bourgeois means-of-production property owning class and the lower welfare using lumpenproletariat class, both have voting power... and that's unfair to the working class becuz their interests aren't our own, keter. Both of em 'r freeloadin hippies.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 3:36 pm "Is democracy really the best ethical choice we have in terms of the moral
considerations of politics?"

At the end of the day, unfortunately, yes. But only if everybody who votes on anything has a job, or else it's a fake democracy. In our country, which is a fake democracy, the upper bourgeois means-of-production property owning class and the lower welfare using lumpenproletariat class, both have voting power... and that's unfair to the working class becuz their interests aren't our own, keter. Both of em 'r freeloadin hippies.

K: just to be sure I understand your position, do you connect voting with
having a job? no job, no vote? and we have taken down other
voting ideas such as only those with property can vote, or only those
who are white males can vote? do you support these ideas as well?

One way to think of this is within the concept of universals.....
to be human is a universal... and all other traits within this, is
particular.... accidental....being white is an accidental trait,
being a male is another particular, accidental trait...
if we accept the argument of capitalism, that millions work
and millions don't work based on the supply and demand of the
market, isn't that just as accidental, as being male or white?

to tie our value as Americans and voting into whether we are working or not,
is to do exactly what health care has done, which is to say, in America,
if you don't work, you don't have health care.... which effectively means,
your value as a human being is tied into working.... this is the very thing
we must avoid.... is my value or your value as a human being tied up
into us being able to work? and the only means to vote is tied up
into working?

I would suggest that is a major step backwards as a civilization...
the path of becoming civilized, is the path of increasing rights to
more and more people.....rights given not because of being able
to work or being able to own property, but rights allowed because one
is human.... and that is the only qualification of owning such rights...
that of being human....

that I have the right, to own property does not depend on my age,
race, color, sex or gender.... as does the right to vote... it doesn't
depend on any other aspect other than being human....as does
the right to marry whom I want to marry or dress as I want to dress
or have sex with whom I want to have sex,
(with another who is legal and has freely accepted this)
this idea of having rights just because one is human, is a rather
new and novel idea....

and to extend this idea, I should have health care, unconditionally,
just because I am a human being... and Kropotkin, who will pay for it?
which is exactly a conservative question... putting money before people...
as it benefits everyone, it should be paid for by everyone... and your
health care? I too will pay for that and does every citizen who pay taxes...
and why? Because the line, the consideration of rights, only needs
to include being human, to be legitimate.... no other consideration
is necessary...... only to be human.......

Kropotkin

let us continue this line of thought...

for a conservative, rights are conditional... you must have certain
qualifications to get those rights.... having a job, would be one
condition to get benefits, to be white or male, would be
another conditional aspect of gaining rights.... that is the conservative path...

But I offer up the path of being human is enough to gain one civil,
legal, political and economic rights... I offer up the unconditional
access to rights by being human.... that is the only condition one
needs to gain civil, legal, political or economic rights....

but one might say, but unfettered access to rights just because one
is human, that is too expensive.... again, putting money before being
human.... if you put money before humanity, you are clearly not
pro-life.... you are pro-money....

to treat another with justice, dignity, honor, decency, respect,
and with grace, just because they are human..... that is the
path of the future.... and certainly not the path of the conservative.....
whose focus is always on the past, where it was acceptable to mistreat
another based on age old discriminations.... the path of history has
been to treat the one, the Pharoh with dignity and respect,
and then to expand that dignity and respect to a few, then to
expand that to some, to a lot, to many and we reach the age
where we can take the treatment of others to mean all that are human
get treated with respect, decency, respect, justice, grace.... just because
they are human.....

and then the next step, a very long step from here to there, will
be to treat all life with decency and respect and justice......
that path will be a very long one... likely to take just as long as it
took us to reach the point where we can accept other human beings
with dignity and decency and respect.... but life too, all life, will
at some point in time, will get treated this way... and life being treated
with decency and respect just because it is life, and not special life,
like dogs or cats, but all living things.... that is the next step...
hopefully one that will take less than a million years to achieve...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin:
So in light of the prior post, is capitalism a moral,
ethical system? One might say, well Kropotkin, it
depends on what you mean by moral, ethical?

K: so, we return to this point.... is capitalism a moral, ethical
system? I know that capitalists think, think they are above such
crude statements, that the marketplace is above such things
as good or evil.... the market they hold is neutral....it is not
good or evil, it just is.... or so they say..... and one of the major
selling points of capitalism is, and they all say it, is that
via capitalism, we have the ''highest standard of living in history''
but is this the right way to approach this? should we hang our hats
on economic wealth, as a means of deciding what is good and evil?

that the value of capitalism lies in its participants ability to buy
things? to buy things as a guide to the correctness of an economic
system? that seems to me to be an awfully shallow understanding
of what it means to be human.... and that is what we are really
talking about, what it means to be human.....is the path to being
human lay in our ability to buy things?

that capitalism is about being selfish cannot be denied.... as Gordon
Gekko states, ""Greed is good""

and when ask after 9/11 and George Bush Jr. made his declaration of war
on Iran and Afghanistan, what should the average
American should do, and he said, "go shopping''.....

that capitalism is greed turned an economic system, that in some
fashion, never actually stated how, but that somehow private
vices, selfish vices, become a public good... it is assumed
but never actually shown how that works...

that selfish behavior is extolled in capitalism, doesn't work in
any other part of our lives...... for example, the family... if everyone
in the family practices being selfish, practices greed, should we expect
that family to succeed, to grow and prosper? I think we know that answer.....
and in the work environment we have, can work survive everyone practicing
selfish behavior? some perhaps, but not all or even most..... that business
or workplace will collapse if everyone in that business, practices selfish
behavior.... that truly selfish behavior on a small scale like a family
or a workplace will damage or even destroy a business or family,
I can't see how we can accept the idea that private vices will
create a public good... it doesn't work on a small scale, what makes
us think that it will work on a large scale?

that a basic, fundamental aspect of capitalism is flawed,
makes us wonder about capitalism itself....it leads me to
wonder if capitalism itself, based on greed and selfish behavior,
is immoral.... if a basic aspect of capitalism is immoral, then what does
it says about the entire framework of capitalism.....

now one might say, but Kropotkin, how do we know that
greed, selfish behavior is immoral? that is an assumption on
your part..... greed and selfish behavior can lead to the failure
of small-scale matters like the family and small business,
and I can't imagine it leading to success on a larger scale,
like an economic system, we can take that failure,
as being immoral....

it seems to me that one of the aspects of being moral, comes
from the fact that from moral ideas and behaviors, lead us to success,
and immoral actions and behaviors lead us to failure....
that may even be, maybe, the working definition of moral
and immoral behavior, that within those moral activities lies
success and immoral activities lead us to failure.....
or does drinking or taking drugs lead us to some sort of
success? or does other '''immoral'' behavior or actions
lead us to success? Again, I don't see how......

I have personally engaged in most immoral actions/behaviors,
and the word ''success''' never found its way to me.....
that we can call failure immoral, might be pushing it,
but within immoral actions lie the path of failure....

give it some thought....

Kropotkin