Two Kinds Of Ethics

[kowalskil]

TWO KINDS OF MORALITIES, MARXIST VERSUS THEOLOGICAL

 

I am reading interesting comments about communist morality, in a book devoted to Judaism, published in 1975. The authors are two rabbis, D. Prager and J. Telushkin. A Catholic or Russian orthodox theologian would probably make similar observations.

 

Marxists and theologians, they write, "are both motivated by the desire to perfect the world and establish a utopia on earth. ... Both promote all-encompassing worldviews. But they diametrically oppose one another in almost every other way." The authors remind us that communists rejected "all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e. God] and nonclass concepts," as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology.

 

Theologians, on the other hand, hold "that morality transcends economic, national, and individual interests." God's commandments are objective rather than subjective. Evil human acts are condemned, no matter what economic or political gains are derived from them. That is the essential difference. Greed in human nature, they emphasize, "may have helped create capitalism, but capitalism did not create greed in human nature."

 

Theologians also deplore social injustice. But they reject brutal proletarian revolutions because "the roots of evil and injustice lie not in economics or society but in man himself." This has to do with the concept of freedom. "For Marxism, which conceives of the world in materialist terms, bondage is defined solely as servitude to external sources such as slave owners, capitalist bosses, or other forms of material inequality. Freedom is liberation from such servitude." People, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, must get rid of economic chains binding them. Then they will automatically cease to be evil.

 

Theologians, on the other hand, see two kinds of liberation, from external and from internal bonds. "Once liberation from external servitude takes place, one must then liberate oneself from internal domination, the domination of one's life by passions, needs, irrationality and wants." The conflict between theologians and Marxists "is not economic, it is moral." Proletarian dictatorship was practiced in several countries; the results show that "when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as crual as their predecessors."

 

Philosophical differences about morality, among different kinds of theologians, are minimal, as far as I know. But their attempts to produce moral behaviors are not very successful. Why is it so? What can be done to improve the situation, to bring our reality a little closer to "utopia" dreams?

 

Ludwik

[SaxonViolence]

I know something of some other religions, but I will stick to my own and say that the Dichotomy is False—in terms of Christianity.

 

Life is short and we're all doomed to die.

 

Eternity goes on forever and one either spends it in Infinite Bliss in Heaven; or one spends all Eternity Burning in Hell.

 

In light of this, when a Christian acts in accordance with his faith, everything that happens here on this Earth is incredibly trivial...

 

Except those things that help one prepare for Eternity.

 

Eternity is a Free Gift to any who apply in a certain specified format—it isn't earned...

 

However, in one of those Paradoxes of Infinity, one can pile up "Treasures" in Heaven.

 

Note:

 

Christians are Human—like everyone else.

 

Sometimes they lose sight of Eternity and live as if this life mattered.

 

{Actually: This is the General Ruler rather than the exception. Good thing our Salvation is not based on "Merit"...}

 

Since Sin came into the World, it is a Bollixed Degenerate Place.

 

There is no human action that will put the World Right once again until God himself destroys and then recreates it.

 

As Jesus said, "The Poor you have with you always."

 

{And Poverty is just one ill of the flesh—there is sickness, age, injury, pain, death...}

 

Capitalism can't eliminate Poverty no matter how much Wealth it Creates.

 

Socialism cannot eliminate Poverty.

 

Altruism can't eliminate Poverty.

 

{Although Altruism and Socialism are great at levelling the playing field and spreading Poverty Equally to everyone within their ken.}

 

It is really wasting valuable time and energy to work toward "Utopia" or to run around looking for folks to "Help".

 

If you really want to help them, get them to become Christians!

 

If they're in your path and you have the means, help them.

 

You ain't gonna take any with you.

 

Don't be too greedy. If in spite of generous donations to your church and purposeful charities, you end up very rich (highly unlikely, but still...)

 

Remember,you're only here for a short while.

 

God Gives no one anything on this Earth—He only loans it to you temporarily.

 

If God places great wealth at your disposal, he has simply chosen you as a Steward.

 

Sure, you don't muzzle the Ox who treads the grain—but neither do you expect that Ox to gorge until he founders himself either.

 

That is why so many "Ethical" arguments miss the whole point.

 

As the Stoics said: Greed and Fear are both the products of unconsciously extrapolating as if we'd live (on this mortal plane) forever.

 

Sure, if you're gonna live forever, buy you 100 Classic Cars if you can afford them.

 

In 1000 years, or 10 000 years, you may be hard up for a vehicle.

 

If you're going to die well before the next century—like me, like almost everyone alive today...

 

Hey Dude, how many Autos can you drive at a time?

 

Some people argue that Abortion is Ethical, because some Dudes are almost Irrevocably bound to have a miserable existence if they're Born.

 

Maybe.

 

Who said that God doesn't need a certain "Worthless" "Loser" who spent his entire life in Physical and Mental Anguish...

 

To accomplish ONE single goal in God's great plan?

 

Hey, you know what—even if God had only set a single task for a Dude...And even if the Dude Screws Up his One Task as Miserably as it is possible for a man to fail something...

 

He can still go to Heaven and looking back on his life a billion times a billion years from now, it will seem incredibly trivial by then.

 

Marxist Ethics make the Hypothetical "Wants" and "Needs" of that Non-Existant Dunce we call "Society" a Heathen Deity that must be satisfied whatever the cost to Rationality, Freedom or the Highest within the Human Spirit.

 

 

 

Saxon Violence

[Eclogite]

The authors remind us that communists rejected "all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e. God] and nonclass concepts," as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology.

Incorrect. You assume that Stalin and Mao carried out those acts in the interest of the class struggle. There is sufficient evidence to call this into question for Stalin. I lack adequate knowledge to say so for Mao, but one can certainly demonstrate that even if the intent was there, the effect was certainly not.

[SaxonViolence]

Well Crabby Old Ayn Rand had this part correct:

 

Once you accept the Core Premise of Collectivism and Reject Both Logic and Morality...

 

The Root of all Deliberations Becomes:

 

"Who is to Decide?"

 

There is no one answer to this question that is Logically more Compelling than any other.

 

Mao, Stalin or Jim Jones have just as much Right and Ability to determine what is "For the good of Society"; or "The Good of Marxist-Lenninism" or for "Goodness Sake" as any other individual or group.

 

Believing that:

 

"Men are endowed by their creator with Certain Inalienable Rights."

 

Or,

 

"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

 

Or,

 

"Honey, get it while you can!"

 

Are also, on some level, accepted as Arbitrary—or at least Unprovable Primaries...

 

But they lead to vastly different results in application.

 

 

Saxon Violence

[Doctordick]

Note that what follows is no more than opinion; however, everything so far posted on this thread is opinion and little more.

 

If you are intelligent and study history long enough, you should be able to comprehend that “government” is organized crime! Their central goal is to accumulate power to control and they always eventually end up in well known criminal activities; counterfeiting and the protection racket being central to their efforts. Anarchists certainly take the position that governments are criminal but they miss the single most important fact. Government is inevitable! There is always someone out there who wants to be in control. If you get rid of any “government”, there is another guy (or organization) down the road who will decide that governing your behavior is to his advantage. Thus it is that we need a government and that the first and most important job of that government is to prevent other governments from governing. That is what stands behind the old adage, “that government which governs least governs best”.

 

Utopia is a total figment of your imagination. What happens is what happens and your, or anybodies, opinion is of little consequence. Good and evil, are unwarranted classifications. Every act has consequences and those consequences are what is either desired or not desired. People classify things as to what they feel the consequences will be. The problem is that, for the most part, they actually have no idea as to what the consequences are going to be. The ignorance of humanity is profound. My favorite comment is, “god save me from the man who thinks he knows what should be done: he is the most dangerous man alive”.

 

Most people take conscious logic as the source of correct behavior. That is a major error for two simple reasons. First, what one is actually consciously aware of is such a small portion of the underlying facts that conscious logic can not be depended upon as valid. And second, the number of steps in any logical argument is so short that it cannot possibly exhaust the possibilities. One's intuition, on the other hand, clearly takes in issues one is not even consciously aware of and is influenced by more things than one can count.

 

If the presumed things standing behind your logic are indeed true (often doubtful) and your logic is not flawed you can depend upon the truth of your conclusions; however, the probability you have omitted something of importance is always high. On the other hand, you cannot guarantee your intuition is correct; however, the survival of the human race can be seen as a pruning to the most successful answers. It seems to me that this suggests intuition is the better guide.

 

My mother once told me that if I did something I thought was right and it turned out to be wrong, that was forgivable. But that if I did something I thought was wrong, even if it turned out to be ok, that was unforgivable. At the time, I was too young to logically work anything out but before I even started the first grade I began to live my life through my intuition. I have always lived my life with my gut. If it felt like the right thing to do, I simply went with it. I have found it to be a rather successful way to live my life and am very satisfied with the destination I find myself in. I have certainly made mistakes and can not assert that I always did the right thing but at least it felt like the right thing when I did it so I think most all my errors were forgivable.

 

Plus that, it certainly freed me up to think about things on a conscious level. There are indeed some things well worth thinking about, but they certainly shouldn't be used to determine what one does.

 

As I said, this is no more than opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick