In a sense, isn't "altrusitic egoism" the only valid form of morality for a communist? I ask because I've recently realized it may be quite cringe and, in fact, helping others because you expect return is not cool
In a sense, isn't "altrusitic egoism" the only valid form of morality for a communist? I ask because I've recently realized it may be quite cringe and, in fact, helping others because you expect return is not cool
Don't know why you're getting so much hate in the comments, meta-ethics is an interesting and complex subject.
Dialectical materialism would either outright reject morality (if one believes morality must be universal) or take a relativistic approach. Like all things it would be based in the material relations between people which change so morality would change as well. It would of course reject a universal morality which might be where you're getting hung up.
Taking a universalist position (e.g. there is an objectively correct morality) is undialectical because it assumes a correct, unchanging morality. Believing morality drives anything is idealist. I think there is a tendency for moral systems to be reactionary because being undialectical implies rejecting change, but this doesn't mean all ethical systems are reactionary in a given moment. It would be reasonable to say a proletarian ethic exists which is in fact revolutionary, and that bourgeois morality was revolutionary against feudal morality. These things don't have neat little names like the idealists would like them to have though because they are not nice and well defined.
probably getting pushback cuz the barrier between different comms is razor thin and probably 99% of users just browse all and dont use subscribed page ever. to non philosophy brained people this question seems purposeless and like someone needs to go outside if they have no capacity figure out whats good and bad in basic situations and freaking out about it.
its how im here