Tuesday, December 15, 2015

marx's moral theory






Fundamental biological needs include eating, drinking, habitation, clothing, sexuality ...















These issues in combination (production for profit not human need) give production itself a bad name. Human essence, social labour, life's prime want, is reduced to being a wage plug, without a real say in the overall progression of society.












Humans are self conscious, intelligent, purposive, active, self directed. But this doesn't mean we can negate the so called "external world" (only external to humans, who are a part of nature, so not really external to nature in that broader sense of the word) or history.






Given the views expressed here about ontology (materialists need to deeply investigate reality) and history (morality is historically contingent) it follows that to work out the best moral - political actions requires some hard work. No one said it would be easy.




Marx is grounded, not utopian. In The German Ideology, Marx rejects the idea of communism as "an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself", rather he sees it as "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things”


From a moral perspective the aim is to bring together social being (human existence as it is) with social essence (human existence as it ought to be). As the contradiction between the individual and the social diminishes then the need for morality to maintain social cohesion would also diminish. All the conditions for rich individuality would be met by society. Eventually, morality might disappear altogether. If everyone's needs were being met through the basic social structure then wouldn't concepts such as selfishness or altruism lose their meaning?




I have done a lot of reading on this topic but won't attempt a detailed bibliography at this stage. But I will mention one reference which to me is a stand out, a PhD thesis by Vanessa Wills titled Marx and Morality (pdf 269pp) who has read and understood all of Marx IMHO.


Peter Green said...

Most of Marx’s statements that relate to human essence are taken from the Notes on James Mill, and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (both written in 1844).
According to “MHI” for example, in his essay on ‘Marx's Human Nature: Distinguishing Essence from Essentialism’
"Marx is essentially saying that human nature is the ability to produce and flourish within a community that serves the community and oneself in a mutually gratifying way."
But Marx stops using the phrase "human essence" after the ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ and ‘The German Ideology’(both in 1845 - his much discussed "epistemological break".
In the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach, Marx declared that what is real is “the ensemble of social relations”:
“the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations”.
The search for a human nature, or essence, by philosophers, it could be argued further, was even more emphatically dismissed by Marx, in the eleventh Thesis, as nothing but speculative interpretation: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways.”
In The German Ideology, Marx disparaged “philosophical phraseology, the traditionally occurring philosophical expressions such as 'human essence,' 'species,' etc [which] gave the German theoreticians … a new turn to their theoretical garments.”

You referred to "The guiding moral principle", saying it has "to do whatever is required for the human flourishing of rich individuals, to dynamically expand human powers for all humans."
Human freedom, is the opposite. It is the extent to which we are free of values such as “guiding moral principles”. We are all free, thank God, to refuse to do anything that will “dynamically expand human powers for all humans”. And indeed, many of us, every day, take delight in exercising that precious freedom.
"Human flourishing" you added, "is not original to Marx but Marx built on the best available ideas that came before him, those of Aristotle.
Phrases like "human essence" and "human flourishing", were, and continue to be, the creation of philosophers (privileged white males) in their own image. They truly believe that their abstraction of self worth (their own "flourishing" and that of others) is universal human nature. And that that (their own creation, but based on their philosophical predecessors) is what makes everyday, living, interactions meaningful and valuable.
They, and others, such as psychologists, will talk about their abstractions as if they were real - like Pygmalion “a Cypriot sculptor who carved a woman out of ivory. According to Ovid, after seeing the" lax moral standards of the women around him "he was "not interested in women", but his statue was so fair and realistic that he fell in love with it." (Wikipedia). Another abstraction that is realised in literature is Pinocchio - whose sexuality was connected to telling lies.

The philosopher’s task is still, today, to try to breathe life into (to inflate) their rubber doll fantasy of "Man" and his "essence" [close to the idea of Doctor Strangelove's precious bodily fluids] by attributing a noble “guiding moral principle” to it. And this, their abstraction, is guided (coincidentally) by the same moral principles upon which they base their own and other philosopher’s self worth!

Bill Kerr said...

Hello Peter,

I should thank you for alerting me to the Vanessa Wills thesis, referenced in the original, which has been such an eye opener and joy to study.

The key issue you appear to raise is whether there can be such a thing as human essence, human flourishing and a philosophical stance. According to you these phrases just become lifeless abstractions. So there is a clear difference here since I am arguing that human essence, human flourishing and a philosophical stance are part of a *scientific* analysis by Marx rather than morality in the abstract.

When I study your response for substantial content about these key issues there is not much there.

My reading of Feuerbach's sixth thesis is (a) it is consistent with Marx's human essence is social labour thesis (b) the context has to be recognised, that Feuerbach was advocating that individuals internalise secular religious values as human essence and Marx was counter posing the ensemble of social relations in reply.

Human freedom is the recognition of social necessity based on the concrete analysis (not only abstract) outlined in my essay. I realise you are aware of this "slogan" and will reject it. I do see the need for more detailed discussion here about historical materialism versus historical determinism. Of course you are free to reject human flourishing as a phoney abstraction with sardonic, poetic voice. Not much I can do about that.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I read through and am interested in such topics. Have given some thought to notions of morality so I hope you don't mind me airing some comments, but firstly to your piece. Your comments on alienation ring hollow in light of the fabulous opportunities, young people in particular, have for self-expression and creativity. I'm thinking back to a fabulous dance display I recently enjoyed, but then the Bangarra dance company are terrific and these are only two I've had the pleasure to viewing; dance, art, photography, music, poetry, literature, philosophy and more are available for anyone with a modest income. The arts provide for self-expression and break down alienation, but then so do connections through all kinds of relationship. I understand there is certainly a problem with alienation but I think it useful to highlight the limitations and constraints under capitalism while acknowledging current opportunities. I thought your comment about artists, teachers, writers being appreciated as typical workers was a throwaway line.

Would be interesting to develop your thoughts on tensions between individual and collective freedom. Under capitalism I dare say there are many people who have achieved a significant level of personal freedom, they have bought their way out, or have had opportunities most can only dream of – but what about everyone else? And this leads more directly to your discussion about Marxism and Morality.

I can’t comment on Marx’s view on morality, but I can see that a materialist perspective can provide for insight. For too long the church and religion have had a stranglehold on morality (at least in the popular mind) and this certainly needs to be challenged. For too long morality has been personalized and associated with sexual behaviour, leaving the all sorts of activity associated with the promotion of personal gain up for grabs. Most of the slang I can think of decries sexual behaviour or body parts, weird isn’t it. What terms of belittlement can be used to bring down tyrants of all kind?

I believe morals are something like collective values. There must be a cross over there with Marxism, being about the collective good, so certainly some ground for thought but best, I think, to do some blog thought without referring too much to the text (Marx) makes it sound doctrinaire.

Bill Kerr said...

Hello anonymous,

Thanks for your comment, you say:

"Your comments on alienation ring hollow in light of the fabulous opportunities, young people in particular, have for self-expression and creativity... dance, art, photography, music, poetry, literature, philosophy and more are available for anyone with a modest income. The arts provide for self-expression and break down alienation, but then so do connections through all kinds of relationship. I understand there is certainly a problem with alienation ... I think it useful to highlight the limitations and constraints under capitalism while acknowledging current opportunities. I thought your comment about artists, teachers, writers being appreciated as typical workers was a throwaway line"

I think my section on Human essence and it's connection to alienation does need to be strengthened. I was thinking this anyway based on my recent rereading of Bertell Ollman's Alienation. I plan to write a better version in a separate blog post.

Would it be fair to say that modern capitalism in industrialised countries provides a life for some of parallel opportunity ("for self-expression and creativity... dance, art, photography, music, poetry, literature, philosophy") which goes along with the core, more serious business of work? Working itself is subject to bottom line requirements of capitalism. It must produce surplus value or be part of an infrastructure whose goal is to produce surplus value for some capitalist. eg. if I work as a teacher, a relatively good job, then my stipulated task is to add value to my students, measured crudely through tests / NAPLAN etc.

A smaller group get lucky and incorporate things they love doing into their work. eg. I've worked as a teacher and overall, although there have been negatives, have loved my job. But at the same time I didn't love the education department which tended to treat me as part of an assembly line. It was more that I could shut the door and do my own thing, more or less, in the confines of the classroom. Teaching, by it's nature is a creative job, and the system couldn't take that away from me, even though I can identify significant trends within the system that work to make it less creative. This is what I mean by a niche solution to alienation. As you point out other such job opportunities exist.

Bill Kerr said...

Returning to this part of Peter's response:

> They truly believe that their abstraction of self worth (their own "flourishing" and that of others) is *universal* human nature (my emphasis on the word universal)

I initially queried this part of Vanessa's thesis as well, the claim that any version of human nature could be universal, given that human nature does change in different social systems (slave, hunter gatherer, feudal, capitalist, yet to be achieved communist etc.). She answered my query on page 15, "human beings are always at least indirectly producing their own conditions of existence when they produce in order to satisfy their need". This criteria spans the different social systems.

FWIW I think the human essence is social labour argument, and this is alienated under capitalism, can be put more strongly and I will attempt to do in a separate post.