Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Moral Intuitions - An Investigation

The problem of morality is perhaps one of the most profound and difficult questions to face philosophers - and people at large. There are very strong cases for each form of value theory, which is sort of what this is, but there are also gigantic problems with them. I am writing because I hope that I can clear some of them out in my own mind - but as so often in philosophy, I am most likely just to confuse myself and my dear readers (if indeed, I have any).

I wrote something about this last night to myself, and I am going to use some of my notes from there as the starting point.

1) All moral reflections are contextual. Contextual means posed against a certain background (culture, time, people, situation) and compared with actions of the same type. That is, there has to be other agents who we know of, and who's actions we can see, for there to be a morality. I don't believe, however, that moral agent here means 'human'. It is probably the best if it is a human - seeing as what we have in common with the rest of humanity, our understanding of our unique situations, etc, rather than an animal - but in a strict sense it is not necessary for it to be human.
We also find a supervenience here - and yet not. That is to say, can specific situations "drag" values with them? Many philosophers think that it is quite odd that it can do that. I think that if we look at it this way, then we will find that values both supervene and not. After all, the value remains in consideration with an entire context. So, to say that a murder is wrong requires us to pose a specific background against it. When we make statements like 'murder is wrong', what we are thinking of is a situation in which a neutral agent murders another neutral agent. All those old Kantian vs. Utilitarian thought experiments rely on this context. The Kantian says that murder is always wrong, prohibited by the moral law, and then the utilitarian progresses to paint us a scenario in which this murder does not off-set our moral intuitions.

2) When considering moral actions or events we infer ourselves - or a "stripped down" version of ourselves - into the moral situation. Many of our intuitions build on this, as does the Golden Rule, for example. What I mean by that is that my view leans on an idea of morality as a universalized relation between moral agents from a subjects 'birds eye' (sort of objective, but 1 enters into our theory of the Goodness or Badness that we infer into a situation). We identify with different people or things involved in the moral situation, much through what I laid out in 1 above. It depends really on who we are, we might have found ourselves in a similar situation as to a thief for example - and thus considering that an action is good because we ourselves infer our own feelings and beliefs on the same type of situation.
This view is heavily problematic, yet I think it holds some truth to it. Above all, what does it make when we make value judgement in direct moral situations? Ie, where we are not merely a passive spectator? 2 needs to be filled up with something more. However, I think it goes at least some way to point us in the direction where we need to go.

3) The (moral) meaning of an act relies on context, loss or gain of status, resources, etc. That is to say: the act must have meaning in the context. In specific situations, ie, historical times, cultures, ceremonies, etc, etc, a specific act has a symbolic meaning that communicates something. My words in a court of law are very different than the very same words in my own living room together with my girlfriend. Again, we find ourselves halfway relying on an underlying belief in good or bad - but where that comes from, I am not sure. However, this point is introducing yet another culturally relevant premise. You can say, with Socrates, that "all men desire the good" (or however you translate that in English). I believe it is true that all human beings, at least (I am not sure if monkeys can be moral agents or just moral recipients) want to do the good in a sort of general sense. What they believe is good, however, comes at least in part from the three things I have outlined so far and in what I will continue to write.
I believe that what we consider to be good, regardless of where we are, is "welfare". That is to say, an incredibly fuzzy theory of not only what people will feel happy over (utilitarianism misses most of our moral intuitions after all) but also what will help them, instill them with feelings that are positive and so on. I believe that number 1 here is how we decide this, if we can at all, that is - we infer our own feelings and thoughts over specific acts and then take these various positive emotions and enter them into anothers contex. For example, I would like to enlighten my sisters with the joy of reading which I think is incredibly rewarding, not only for happiness but also because you learn, you get entertainment, you feel strong emotions and so on. However, my sisters do not feel the same way.

4) The issue of covenants. Human beings, being the herd animals we are, build social relations. We gravitate towards leaders and assign functions (perhaps by Searles famous XYZ, but I think things really have more to do with power over resources and power struggles than he seems to believe). One thing that will always set people off is betrayal. It cuts down to the core of human beings. Particularly if we are betrayed by someone who we should trust with whatever it is. I think feelings and the beliefs we sometimes build before or after the bond is created (ie, trusting someone to be your leader, or creating an office that we should trust - whichever way it begins) are incredibly inflamed if the covenant is broken. If people do not do what they should do. This is the basis for our contractual intuitions. However, covenants are far less 'voluntary' and atomistic than social contract theories typically are. Consider the middle ages, for example, where a lord had a specific responsibility to his serfs and the other way around. In no way was this an equal balance - considering that if the serfs opposed themselves to this they would be hung by the lord most likely.

5) Where does morality come from? I am a materialist. I cannot believe that we are in any way endowned with morality from a supernatural being. I guess some people do, but that is an entirely different matter which I will not debate here.
Morality, thus, serves as a biological function. In game theory it is proved that moral action by all members is better for the group and each individual in it. Morality surely stems from our ability to cooperate and the bonds of emotions between various members of the group. Morality, thus, is at least halfway concerned with our sentiments - that is, our basic moral feelings towards other conscious beings. I regard our thoughts on people in coma, children, etc, through my point 1. That is, we infer ourselves into the situation. That is, we think what if WE were aborted, what if WE had the pull plugged - etc. It doesn't really sound like valid reasoning, however. I believe the conception of conscious beings, or feelings beings I should perhaps say, to be right considering the way animist tribes view the immaterial objects that they believe are actually conscious. I definately also believe we can have moral sentiments towards animals.
My only explanation for moral feeling towards nature and other immaterial objects is a judgement based on the destructiveness of man, our own inferring our moral selves into a spectator of destroyed rainforest or whichever (which fills us with dread) and above all, the effects for all conscious beings when this happened.

I have two deeply problematic questions to tackle:

6) Can a monkey be a moral agent? I have no answer to this perplexing question. I am certain that a monkey parent will feel to it's young the same obligation, love, etc, as a human being would. I, however, cannot answer if moral reasoning - or reason at all - is necessary for morality. It is definately helpful. But is it necessary?

7) Is this pointing towards a kind of naturalism in a sense of ideal observer theory, objective values or emotivism/cultural relativism? I lean more towards the first two, but there are definately at least parts of the others in this. I hope to compile the jumbled mess that is our moral thoughts into at least a somewhat more systematic system. My main fear is this:

Can there be entirely contradictory moral intuitions that are true at the same time? Also, can we have moral sentiments that are just as moral as anything else, and which at the same time seems to make no sense whatsoever?

More on these two questions later, perhaps.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

What is Socialism and Marxism?

I was writing a post before about what Marxism was, but the events of a few days have led me to rethink that post and to write a new one about what socialism and marxism really is. As so often, I have to thank the ignorant for enough inspiration for me to write. May there always be another idiot!

"Socialism/Communism doesn't work because people are too selfish"
"Socialism is stealing from people what they rightfully earned"
"Communism is a really nice /idea/, but.."
"Capitalism rewards people who work hard, and socialism doesn't"

Once more into the breach, dear friends:

First of all, I would like to distinguish between two different strands of socialism. There is the utopian/moral socialism which just thinks about justice. About the fact that people have it worse for no reason other than injustice. This is sometimes coupled with what they here in the US call 'bleeding heart liberalism'. While the moral impulse is correct, it is not deep enough and it's critics are right - it can never change the world.

Good thing then that we have Marxism.

The basic idea of economy in it's classical and new (neoclassical) form is that people are motivated by personal (egoistic) interest. Marx himself, this man who everyone thinks they have a clue about but very few do, built on this foundation. His insight is that capitalism hardly works flawlessly - there are inherent contradictions in it, it does not do what it says it does and that it relies on a deep-sated form of exploitation. And the understanding that it is entirely reasonable for the capitalist to exploit the worker. Now, if we just think about this, what people manage to call 'realistic' we will understand one thing.
It is just as reasonable for the worker to at every turn attempt to gain a further share of the fruits of his labour, stolen as they are by the capitalist. it is entirely reasonable for him to rebuild the world and to - by purely, totally egoistical calculation - plot the overthrow of his master.

In the world that we live in the worst injustice is not murder of thousands in Ghana, it is not the suppression of dissidents in Iran, it is not the tsunami disaster. And it is definately not the death of imperialists in far-off nations.

The worst injustice, because it is so permeating, encompassing and powerful is the way we arrange our production. In our lives, most of us sell our labour on a market. Like slaves, we have to wait for the judgements of a few people - called capitalists - if they want us or not. In some cases, people have refused to work and thus managed to fight, with tooth and nail, for certain securities. These groups are most commonly called unions. Don't think for a moment that the capitalist would treat you well. The idea that they are cuddly little bankers and factory owners is ridiculous - the idea that they are fat, selfish caricatures more so.

No, the reason why capitalists have to be so cruel is because other capitalists will otherwise eat them. The engine in capitalism is competition - this blind tool that forces capitalists to make a higher, and higher profit. A profit that they can only make from labourers. What! You say. But what about higher sales, better machines, etc?
Well. Consider this classic schema. In the world there is but potatoes and knives. In the time it takes to produce four potatoes you can make one knife. Thus, one knife is equivalent with four potatoes, and vice versa. Imagine now whatever fancies you like. Imagine that there is now money in the form of gold, for example. In the time it takes to make four knives, you manage to dig and refine one ounce of gold out of the ground. Thus, the ounce of gold is worth four knives and sixteen potatoes. But what if I give you my four knives for an ounce of gold and then go and buy the equivalent value (16) of potatoes? Nothing has changed!
What if I now cheat you by lying about how much my gold weighs? Well, we still have the same ratio. You see, whatever trickery we can accomplish with numbers and lying (and however fond capitalists are of this - they like to get a bigger slice of the cake, but they want the cake to grow rather than to just be divided differently) does not change the amount of things we have in the world. Only the labour of people changes that.

A labourer works a certain time every day for a capitalist. This is in their little deal that liberals hold so dearly. But please tell me: when are the two equal parts in a contract ceasing to be equal? And who would imagine that a capitalist, rich as he is, who can survive for quite a long period of time and quite happily is on equal footing in negotations with a man who needs to work to feed himself? The systems of welfare and unions help to smoothen this out some, but again we see that these are things labourers have to /fight/ for. People have been killed in every country in every part of the globe for a better life.

You see. It works like this. The higher wages, longer breaks, safer workplace that a labourer has, the more of the profit goes lost. The value that the labourer produces is taken away from him. He is exploited by the capitalist. It is by no means the only form of exploitation in our sad world, but it is the most common.

And around this basic slavery, around the fact that people labour daily, an entire industry has been built up to justify it. We have seen above that it is rational for the worker to strive for socialism, and rational for the capitalist to strive for capitalism. However, the vast majority of all media in the world is owned by the burgeoise - the property owning class - rather than in the hands of workers collectives. We are taught that this is how the world is, that it might always have been like this in one form or another (but of course, the latest "democratic"-capitalistic version is the best) and that we might most hope for is to buy more. Our values are related in relation to other people, and into this relation commodities step in with an ever increasing stride. It is not because capitalists have a vast conspiracy that they all secretly scheme over when the proletariat has it's back turned - it is rather that it produces the ideas of the capitalist class and then suffuses them into the world. The process has been going on in every time with every ruling class. Aristotle, that acute thinker, thought all men free and rational - except the barbarians who formed the slave class that his aristocratic society lived off of - just like the burgeoise live off of labourers.

And what does it mean to have a socialist society anyway? Well, Marx idea was that we were going to cover everyone's basic needs and that workers would control their own means of production. In capitalism there is a fundamental opposition of interests between labourers and capitalists. While some might hope to escape it, it will crop it's head up time and time again. Capitalists will try to 'rationalize' (their word for lessening costs on everything that keeps away from profit, including wages, safety precautions and so on) and workers will want to - in the same self-interest as capitalists - get a larger share of the cookie. Many lies have been spread about leftist terrorists and troublemakers, lies which are understandable as the capitalist class tries to protect itself. The news are full of these kind of ideas.

So, now we are done with question one.

Now, some right-wing people think that socialism is theft because it deals with taxes. Well, in a socialist society we would not really have taxes of the same kind - so you don't have to worry! Again, we are being confused by the Social Democratic tradition that has moved more and more towards 'moral socialism' (which really only manages small reforms and never deals with the true problems of capitalism, which is evident by how the Social Democrats of Europe haven't even dared to challenge the system of ownership for real in the last 80 years that they have been in power in and about the 'heart of civilization'). Why would there be no taxes per se? Well, because we would all produce to cover everyone's basic needs. Rather than hunting for profit, we would have a society where everyone had an interest that came together with everyone else in larger or smaller collectives. A system of reward can easily be built into socialism and should, Marx always believed capitalism to be a giant step forward from the feudal age - and socialism should not relinquish it's strengths. Of course people deserve the fruit of their labour.

But capitalists produce nothing yet live off of everyone else.

If you are upbrought by taxes, smash down the capitalists! If you're angered at the government - realize that it runs the errands of capitalists!

Workers make profit, and capitalists take them. If there is an injustice in fruits of labour, it is here. Taxes have served to give something of the theft back, but not much. Social Democracy has many flaws: but we are not Social Democrats, and though our tactic might be reformist for the moment because we fight for the interests of labourers we are not interested in taxes and injustice, instead, we have realized who is really the undeserving parasite on society.

Three.

Communism is a nice idea. But it is more than an idea. It is not some mere ideal. Indeed, what people must realize is much of what I have written above. A socialist or communist society is not built on mere beliefs, it is built on careful studies and then hard work for the cause of the lower classes. Will the world really be better once we have socialism? Yes. Because in every part of it now capitalism has entered. And the interests of capitalism isn't to create wealth and joy. Sometimes these are biproducts, which are very good, but there is always a greater misery created. Watch how the 19th century plays out all over again in the parts of the world that didn't go through the battles of the working class in Europe (which are not over, but which have gained substantial ground over the centuries: which we must remember). Because there is no profit in feeding the hungry, saving poor people and so on, capitalism doesn't do it. Sometimes private organzations do, but it is a drop in the ocean. It is like putting out a single mouse trap when you have a mouse infestation right in your wall. But there is more than just these things that my overambitious, morally outraged comrades tend to throw out. There is also the commercial breaks on TV, the gas prices you pay for your car, the mortgage on your house. Capitalism is something that is definately concerning every one of us. And very few gain something from it. Most of what we manage to produce is taken away from us. So we need to realize that socialism is more than just an idea, we can actually put people in power of their own lives by creating democratic workplaces.

Which brings me to another part.

Socialism is about democracy. It is more democratic than the present democracy. Because in it, we get to vote on a few people we have no control over to not make a terrible job of it. True socialists and communists know that the state is never going to seriously go against the interests of the capitalist class. In the capitalist society, democracy stops at the factory gates and opens at the ballots every four years.
Most of our lives are lived working, and it is how we expend a great deal of our energy. But during this time, we are owned by someone else. We are slaves for most of our life.

And how does capitalism reward people who work hard? If you go into work and, through a frenzy, do 50% more than you usually do, the capitalist will be overjoyed. From time to time he might give you a promotion, say, oh, every other year or so. Why does he do that? Because you create more profit for him, you produce more of what marxists call surplus value. And he hopes that you, by being an example, will cause others to work harder, too. But your wage doesn't go up because you do more, you just work yourself harder and cause a higher profit.

And so we have it.

For all of you who read this and who are going to go sell yourselves on a market: you know how hard it is to make money go together. You know how your entire life you will have to work for someone else. Capitalists will do everything to make you believe you should vote for them. But let's throw that away. You're not going to gain anything from their policies. The world isn't going to get better for it.

It's time for the working class to reawaken after it's long, reformist sleep and realize who it's enemy is.
Bloggtoppen.se