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
the issue is that "good" is so vague that it means different things to every person. so philosophy nerds step in at this point and try to define good in a whole bunch of different ways that say more about them as people than they do about what it means to be a good person. the history of the field is that it's been used to justify heinous shit done by the ruling classes basically since it's inception. but it's taught in classes absent that history - because to tie philosophy to its use is politics.
monke sees other monke smile - monke feel good, monke helps more :monke-beepboop:
Monke smart, monke can help even if doesn’t feel good, because monke knows - its nice when monke helps monke :le-monke:
Eh, who knows how people are supposed to respond, :shrug-outta-hecks: i was oversimplifying with monke character, not that it encompasses even my experiences all the time
I mean, the philosophical question of big M Morality and how it connects with dialectical materialism is important.
You can't abolish capitalism by being nice or living your life according to some universal moral code. Morality stems from production and how the surplus value of that social (or non-social) production is distributed.
Doing moralism is bad and un dialectical.
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
Something interesting that nearly every school of socialist thought has in common is the desire to systematize morality. Take the way that Capitalism, in pushing us into competition with one another, draws out our worst instincts - and how, in alienating us from the results of our actions, it makes it very easy to be complicit in evil. Socialism in all its forms attempts to rewrite our societal and personal obligations in order to make positive outcomes the natural result of our society functioning normally, rather than something that has to be achieved despite the prevailing incentive structure.
So no, morality is definitely not inherently reactionary. Reactionaries can make a reactionary morality, but progressives can also make a progressive one.
Anti-materialist is thinking communism arises from people having the correct moral values
Just because morality is influenced by the economic base doesn't mean there's no difference between good and bad things.
Most humans regardless of economic system want a lot of the same things.
How you rationalize that is up to you. I've met plenty of die hard christians that run in leftist groups just because their goals are the same.
Moralism is reactionary, ethics can be good or bad depending on how you outline the ethics.
Even if it isn't perfect theory or whatever I'd rather hang with people that try to be good to other people than :galaxy-brain: that try to atomize ethics and morality the way a hacker might take apart a video game to shoot through walls and fly under the map.
