1
 
Perhaps it is possible that everything, as it is comprehended, could be catalogued, discussed and decided upon without using concepts of right and wrong/good and bad in a moral sense. These concepts are human constructs, and if we are serious about the truth of the matter, we need to check their validity.

Preliminary note: The term 'human construct' can give a false impression of separation from reality or of having nothing to do with science. Although some constructs may be unsound in some or perhaps all respects for representing reality (beyond the fact that such beliefs are held by an individual or group), others are sound products of scientific observation and speculation facilitated by the art of language.  

The terms 'human construct' or 'abstract' are sometimes used in such a way that it seems to imply 'merely human construct', or 'merely abstract' or is stated as such to suggest that being a human construct/abstract is proof enough that a) its use for knowing/telling truth cannot be proved or b) its use for knowing/telling truth is only illusory. When this type of argument is directed at one concept or type of concept it may be over looked that if the suggestion is true, it throws all knowledge and belief into doubt or non existence.  

One influence in this may be a lingering, subconscious dualism despite a conscious materialism. This would result in the impression that consciousness is somehow separate or different from physical reality - in which case, according to materialism, it would not exist - hence perhaps the sense of confusion that is all-be-it selectively expressed about concepts.  However, when actually facing the question, do not materialists accept that consciousness, where it exists, is necessarily part of physical reality? Otherwise we would be arguing our claim to rational argument out of existence.  

Rather than separating us from reality, consciousness is part of reality and is our knowledge of reality; it is reality knowing itself to some extent. The ability to conceptualize is essential to discovering and describing the truth in all the matters into which we enquire. Since the beginnings of language, construction has been involved in sensing and responding. Discovery and invention are in a dynamic interrelationship; and to remove all construction/invention would be to remove all language, all culture and most if not all consciousness. To suggest that veracity when using human constructions/concepts is a)always doubtful or b) impossible, is to a) throw all the methods and results of science and art into eternal doubt or b) state that all science and art including the statement that it is impossible to know the truth is irretrievably meaningless.   

If we were to doubt the value of concepts for knowing and telling truth then we would have to doubt the concept of a catalogue, a discussion, a decision - and all our ideas about existence including democracy and socialism. It is healthy to question things, but if we remain in doubt about the truth value of all concepts then we must doubt the concept of truth, and therefore existence itself. We cannot trust ourselves with anything. It is a philosophical dead end, but with a chink of light in it that says, 'Climb up through here and we can carry on thinking, feeling, talking and living with commitment; because we have proof enough: Our senses and responses, particularly to communicate with one another, but generally all states and actions all functionally confirm each others existence and the existence of the rest of the world. We may occasionally - or often - be mistaken, but we could not be mistaken unless there is reality to be mistaken about; and by the same token, we may recognize where we have been wrong, and realize the truth which is revealed by being coherent with all other truth………..'  

The world works according to certain laws/theories. We are part of it and effect it, and understanding how it functions we can deliberately achieve certain results. We continue to increase the amount that we can scientifically explain and predict in terms of likelihoods; and everything that has been properly confirmed by science takes part in the whole. So unless we stay (metaphorically) sitting facing the wall in the platonic cave insisting that we can only see shadows, which ever way we go, we come out and are faced with the same work, if we care about anything, which involves using concepts as a real way of knowing and communicating about reality. 

As scientists - and as artists - we need to recognize conceptual constructs as produced by and part of existence; as being in the matrix of cause and effect. It is as such that they constitute sufficiently understood and shared forms of awareness for us to be able to relate to each other about our human and environmental conditions, our behaviour and the results of behaviour, and to increase our awareness. For more on this see http://www.szura.org/meryn/origens.html 

2

If however if it is then specified, 'No, I just doubt the truth value of some constructs', then we are functioning with the principles that there is truth and at least some truth is known and can be told (e.g. these principles). Then we necessarily agree that we have developed some trustworthy concepts and can possibly develop more.

Erroneous concepts occur when insufficient perception/learning allows for misperceptions/false indoctrination. Perception/learning may to some extent be blocked by false indoctrination at an early stage, although this can be overcome later. Clearly some concepts are not acceptable as to us as socialists as representative of the truth - the concept of 'white supremacy' for example. This can be rejected on the grounds of scientific understanding of the basic equality of human beings, and on the grounds of scientific socialism; our theory (that if not self evidently true is anyway backed up with loads of circumstantial evidence), that equality and cooperation provides the most benefit for everyone.  We would hope (I hope) that we are working towards a synthesis of sets here; that as with the example above, erroneous concepts are those which socialists will want to reject.

Complete rejection however is often not appropriate because a concept (unlike the example above) may have some valuable truth that needs to be sorted out from the error in it - a more exacting task - but necessary if we are not to lose touch with the truth and become mindlessly dogmatic.  

With regard to the example above: Understanding the scientifically demonstrable basic equality of human beings, and the scientific theory of socialism is not enough in itself. We have to value well being enough to apply it, and indeed we have to have at least some ideas about what constitutes well being, and so have values in that sense. If our values are based on scientific knowledge of what is needed for health, it is inherent to this that we also value truth, so that we know what to do for well being, but also perhaps for its own sake, out of scientific curiosity and aesthetic appreciation.  These values and how they influence choices and behaviors are what are called our ethics.  

Concepts are described as being ethical or relating to ethics or having an ethical element to the extent that opinions/desires/behaviours are involved/referenced that have, may have or are believed to have (or it is believed may have) helpful or harmful effects on life. If individuals/groups defer to unquestioned opinions, desires and habitual behaviours in these matters more than to scientific observation and speculation, then it is to be expected that concepts will tend to be unsound; whereas if science is deferred to then it is to be expected that concepts will tend to be sound. The choice to defer to science for the purpose of well being [for serving need in that sense], however, involves opinions/desires/behaviours, and hence this choice would be described as ethical, relating to ethics or as having an ethical element. 

The criteria for accepting or rejecting conceptual constructs (or parts of them) should surely be whether or not they are efficient/accurate for perceiving and understanding the world (including ourselves), developing our ideas and expressing our experience; so that there can be exchanges of information and ideas enabling further development. Language naturally functions to test concepts according to these criteria, as the concepts of morality/ethics/justice have been tested by use over many millenniums from when they were first conceived, and this testing has contributed to their development. This is not to say that we should only rely on the testing of the past as proof of worth - we have to also study present usage - but it is essential to take into account. It is also essential to take into account that the process of development continues.  

3

The words morality/ethics/justice alone do not necessarily specify any particular type, but may be used just to refer to the fact that morality/ethics/justice exist in some form/s in society.  This reflects the fact that we have a general concept of morality/ethics/justice; that they are of some type or take some form. However because they are associated with concepts of right and wrong concerning attitudes (affecting life), behaviour (affecting life), and political organization (affecting life), there is also an implication that there is truth about what is right and wrong in these respects that to some extent can be known/found out. This is judged with present ability (which varies very widely in society, and I return to this later); but because the general concepts of morality/ethics/justice invoke the truth and attention to wellbeing, they also challenge us to seek and to achieve truth telling and well being. Particular concepts of and manifestations of morality/ethics/justice are specified by the contexts in which they are used. This is how the language works. see: http://www.szura.org/meryn/socialism.html         

General ideas/judgments of good and bad are integral to our awareness of and communication about thoughts/sensations/actions etc. [a good idea/feeling/shot] and other events/things [it was a bad earthquake/school/year for tomatoes]. According to linguistic use, ethical ideas/judgments are a subset of these that are integral to our awareness of and communication about thoughts/attitudes/actions that are concerned with/affect the welfare of sentient life. It is not the point that there are disagreements about what is ethically right or wrong, we anyway want to rely on common ownership democracy to decide what should be done, with information available rather than mutilated or obscured as it largely is by the mass media today. The point is that what is termed 'ethical thought, attitudes and actions' take place, and necessarily in political decision making, because this affects life.

4

So should morality/ethics/justice be rejected 1) completely, on the grounds that any such concept is only a bourgeois construct for maintaining the status quo? - Or 2) on the grounds that although there may be a 'truly human morality' in socialism, that in capitalist society this is impossible, and morality etc. is bound to be purely bourgeois etc.? A lot is inherent in these statements. The matter is being judged on the scales of working class interests or put another way - according to what is good for the working class or for the majority. This is the tacit criterion, which implies that bourgeois constructs misrepresent the truth and obscure working class interests; so bourgeois constructs are erroneous and harmful in that sense. Since both statements thus necessarily rely on valuing the truth of these matters for the sake of our well being, they both sound to me like rejecting morality for moral reasons. The fact that the reasons involve illusions/misperceptions that are perpetuated by ignoring the logic of language in these matters would explain the contradiction. 

Or is morality held particularly in question because it is particularly a matter of opinion as to what is good and bad etc.? Because it is thought of as private? So for example, language is a construct, but we experience it functioning for us to communicate; and the concept of a catalogue has been constructed, but we experience it being useful outside of making a mental list…………But morality is not just private either, we also experience morality in action in society. Besides which, is it not useful and indeed necessary to have ways of describing our thoughts and feelings, and in particular concerning matters of conscience? These also exist, they have causes and they have effects. And is it in any way scientific to assert that conscience in capitalism must be entirely bourgeois?

5

If we particularly doubt the truth value of concepts of morality/ethics/justice (except as an expression of bourgeois beliefs/a bourgeois state of affairs) - or, as has been put forward, just socialist concepts of morality/ethics/justice whilst capitalism exists, then to be scientific, this must be regarded as the subject of an ongoing enquiry. It is not enough that 'Marx said we don't need them', as I have been told. What socialists rightly put forward as essential and valuable about the work of Karl Marx is that he performed a rigorous scientific analysis and presented proof that the capitalist class exploits workers by extracting surplus value, and by using this as a means of taking, maintaining and extending ownership and thus control; thereby removing and preventing equality and the autonomy of communities.  This incontrovertibly shows that capitalist market relations only give the appearance of a free exchange. (That it's a total con.)  

Marx was also artistic with words, a quality which is also essential and valuable to us, and is exemplified in 'Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains'. This appeal to us to take control of our lives has such resonance however because it is based on the truth i.e. something that can be (and in this case has been) scientifically shown. Although he may have believed at some point that the words 'ethics', 'morality' and 'justice' could not be more widely defined than meaning only 'capitalist ethics/morality/justice', or would not be useful in any larger capacity, and may have expressed this very persuasively, it cannot be demonstrably concluded from his analysis of capitalism. It was not based on proof and was only an opinion.  

The analysis of capitalism and the fact that it is the dominant system does not allow for us to leap to the conclusion that no morality can exist in it but capitalist morality. What about his own thoughts, feelings and writings - and those of others - what does Friedrich Engels mean exactly in 'The conditions of the working class in England' (the chapter on factory hands), when he writes of "the barbarous treatment of the operatives, the destruction of their health, the social, physical, and mental decay of whole generations", and on the next page when he writes of the 'demoralisation' of the workers? What is he judging this by - bourgeois morality? For more on this see: http://www.szura.org/meryn/socialism.html  - about the treatment of sentient beings and the management of the conditions of life.

Without proof we should allow that general concepts of morality have reference, morality that does not clearly understand capitalism or socialism but is exasperated and horrified by capitalist practices has reference, and that class conscious socialist morality has reference - and simply ask that ethical terms are used with sufficient qualification. It has not just been doubted that these concepts are valid (or presently valid), which should surely leave their use to personal discretion, but it has been flatly denied that they are. Where is the proof for this? I don't know what it could possibly look like - any ideas?

6

There is a however a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary. Study of how moral concepts function indicates that they are integral to humanity, to our language, to our capacity for developing self awareness and to social development. We may condemn certain moral ideas/practices - but we do so on moral grounds. Marx's analysis of exploitation by wage labour in no way proves that such exploitation is wrong. That is what is known as a moral judgment not an empirical fact; but it is a moral judgment based on empirical facts - not only about how capitalism works, and how a different system could work, but on the available knowledge about what is needed for human well being.

That Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels cared about the welfare of workers is taken for granted, as is the knowledge that they had at the time about wellbeing and what produces it. Such knowledge to some degree automatically informs what we consider to be right or wrong for us (although we can become more aware of this and add to and improve the processes).  Marx may have performed his studies and expositions just out of curiosity, but I think it is evident that witnessing the harmful effects of capitalist conditions on life was at least also a motivating factor. It was the effect that capitalist exploitation has on life that made him not only state the facts but also call for us to create a different system. This later is what fits the definition of having ethics about the matter.  

The further discoveries that have been made since the time of Marx and Engels about what benefits (what is good for) the health of human beings and their environment has continued to supply evidence that capitalism does not serve these needs, and indeed that in these respects it is extremely damaging. Further discoveries have also continued to provide evidence that socialism would serve these needs, and I return to this in part 10.

7

Ethical beliefs and ideas about justice depend on the whole mental/emotional system of a person, which as things are can be extremely varied. Capitalism, as the dominant system generally has influence; however our morality is also formed by some combination of the following: i) Human interactions which are not specifically capitalist. ii) Study of topics/material that is not specifically capitalist in the forms of science, art, philosophy, the materialist conception of history and revolutionary ideas. iii) Direct observation and experience of what works for the well being of individuals, communities and the environment.  

Of course capitalism tends to limit these and for many they are severely limited, but within capitalism they are available here and there, and may even be encouraged.  

There is broad agreement over large areas about what is actually good for wellbeing: Peace, not war; democracy, not oppression; food, shelter, health care, education and opportunities to work for our communities, not famine, poverty, illness and waste. Our basic morality is so much part of us that, as also noted above it is perhaps often taken for granted. Also the extent of acceptance of capitalist law varies tremendously - and where it is accepted, this is generally in some combination of ways; unwittingly, grudgingly, angrily; perhaps extremely rarely with enthusiastic dedication for the whole package properly understood. Plus, humanitarian morality does have some influence in the present legal system. There are things that are against the law in capitalism which it is safe to assume will also be considered unacceptable to the majority in socialism. It is to be expected however that in a socialist system such problems would be increasingly alleviated, and in connection to this, that the ways of dealing with them would be very different. 

In capitalism hundreds of millions of people do not have their basic needs for healthy food, clean water and shelter met, and it is arguable that capitalism totally fails to meet our psychological/social needs, and that we supply this as far as we can in the system for ourselves. Despite the de-humanising effects of the present system, most people still have humanitarian morality to some extent, and sufficiently that the capitalist rulers have to least pay lip service to this in order to keep majority support. I believe that it can be shown that the different priorities of capitalist and humanitarian morality existing simultaneously is a core cause of conflict in society as it is, and I return to this later.

8

I think that there is a reason why children and teenagers are so often thought of as being a problem in capitalism. It is because we do not naturally take to capitalist conditions; but although it presently continues to be widely crushed in numerous ways, the spirit of rebellion from lies and oppression is constantly reborn. Of course without sufficient awareness of the situation (which is unlikely in children and teenagers as things are) rebellion can take many forms that are unhelpful, or can be taken over by despair; hence there is so much dysfunctional behaviour ranging from taking the rage out on others by bullying to addiction, depression and self harm.  

There are varying degrees of awareness in society of what we really need for wellbeing, as well as the difficulties of attaining what we need. We have evolved complex mental/emotional systems and these require appropriate interaction in order for us to properly develop language, analytic ability, imagination, empathy, kindness, responsibility, courage, appreciation of life - but these interacting qualities are all readily potential in us. If we are fortunate enough to encounter what we need to develop these attributes, what they constitute and produce is not capitalist ethics, but humanitarian ethics which are at work in many ways today, and with increasing frustration at financial systems. They are also necessary if socialism is to have a chance of working.  

All concepts are products of conditions, and capitalist conditions obviously have a pervasive effect in society at present. Capitalist ideology is not however all-pervasive. Concepts that are fundamental to our humanity such as of right and wrong behaviour concerning well being, that are concomitant to the primal state of truth awareness and truth seeking cannot be only capitalist, because we are products of conditions in a much larger sense than just being products of capitalism. Human evolution is pre-capitalist and we have evolved as a social animal. Our cultural evolution has also been mainly pre-capitalist, which means that the basic forms of language (that are shared world wide) and indeed the majority of language development is also pre-capitalist, including the concepts (and precursors of the words for) ethics, morality and justice.  

9

The present human malaise is not due to language failing us. Ideology, social customs, concepts and language originally developed together and although early cultures were not ideal in certain ways, they certainly were not capitalist. Marx pointed out that human production relations where at first collective rather than between individuals, and the alienating effects of capitalism. Studies of behaviour, psychology, particularly group psychology, and tribal life have shown (surprise surprise) that we are healthiest, happiest and most efficient when we feel valued and safe in our communities, when we cooperate, and when rules and courses of action are decided upon mutually as equals [three elements which create and support each other]. That we are in this sense naturally sociable would simply back up the socialist case.  

Obviously there were conflicts and other problems before capitalism, but the pressures of the system - of competition for ownership and profits, and the conditions that result have in some ways arrested and perverted our cultural development, preventing the dissemination of knowledge and ideas that help us to develop awareness. Capitalist conditions tend to breed fear, ignorance, suspicion, conflict and anger rather than the processes of reason, learning, compassion, cooperation and responsibility. But still the later survive, and as already mentioned, although capitalism is presently dominant, there are different ideological movements. There is dissatisfaction with and revolt from its methods, and there are growing numbers who, like the Socialist Party, believe that to get rid of these methods we have to get rid of the system altogether. 'Dominant' does not mean 'only'. The inheritance of language and the innovations that it allows for are functional in producing dissent.  

10

The power of mind control using language has always been recognized by elements of the ruling class and efforts have been and are made to harness it. Charles Pierce, advisor to William James and John Dewey, architects of Compulsory State Education in the USA wrote, in the mid 1800s:  

“Let the will of the state act, then, instead of the will of the individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young, having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated or expressed. Let all possible cause of a change of mind be removed from men's apprehension. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard … unusual opinions with hatred and horror. Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence…. Let a list of opinions be drawn up to which no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required to accept all these propositions in order to segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.”

Attempts at such indoctrination have of course since been extended by the U.S. to much of the rest of the world.  

Capitalism has generally extended itself by means of economic and military force and by indoctrination. Subsequently the ideology of capitalism has gained momentum (up to recently anyway), passed on through generations, sufficiently accepted and supported by rulers and workers alike despite dissatisfaction with it, as the best of all possible of worlds. This is not a language problem, it is a political problem. All the language that we need for revolution is readily available, but how to use it has been denied to many of us due to the political situation. So this is not a problem of people having too many concepts - but rather too few, having perhaps lost some from the past, and/or lacking access to new ideas or having ideas insufficiently developed because of the capitalist setting.  As people become more aware of the situation and of how things could be different, certain opinions that were held previously are reassessed in the more fully understood context. Language is adaptable and ideas can adjust.  

There is presently quite a large proportion of the population who exhibit a lot of enthusiasm for certain capitalist laws and associated punishments. I would speculate that this is not only due to indoctrination but also due to the anger that people feel about their own lives without realising capitalism as the main cause. For example, many people call for capital punishment and flogging as a solution to certain problems because they have been conditioned by the system to blame others, not the system. Workers are of course also conditioned to blame themselves rather than the system - which helps to keep us self hating/depressed/addicted to substances that temporarily take away the pain and generally with low self esteem and thus more easily controlled. Of course individuals and groups do have a certain amount of responsibility, but once we recognize that capitalism imposes controls, pressures, scarcity and war that are necessary only to maintain a ruling class……………once we realize that we can much more efficiently and enjoyably raise healthy sociable children (thus avoiding all sorts of problems), overcome difficulties and generally create a far more abundant and safe society with common ownership and by organizing ourselves democratically as equals…………Once, to summarise, we realize that the class system harms us on a massive scale rather than helping us, our opinions about 'crime' and about our own moral worth may be profoundly and radically altered.  

However, as indicated already, most people, if not all to some extent, prior to becoming a socialist have certain ethics/moral outlooks which would not change or would change relatively little on gaining it, because they are already compatible with socialism. Equally essential to note is that ethical changes which do occur on becoming a socialist actually happen because we already have a basic commonsense morality based on knowledge of what we need for health and well being; because we have a sense of true justice (in that sense) - not because we don't. This is the 'wellspring of socialist consciousness' that is spoken of.  

11

Human beings are complex, so we must be wary of over simplification. Individuals can sustain, and pass on to their children, two different and sometimes conflicting outlooks - indeed the (often repressed) conflict within is probably one of the salient features of our age. There may, for example, be a cultural heritage of prioritizing appreciation and respect for ourselves and others, for the community as a whole and for the life giving environment, but the financial priorities of capitalism - and belief in capitalism as a necessary or 'safe' system - may be overlaid on this. But relations that are buried in the psyche and the culture, however deep, can still have influence in our awareness - and can grow and find a way out. 

If the majority only have capitalist morality, then why are those suffering from the effects of capitalism world wide calling for justice? - And why do others - including large organizations - also call for justice on their behalf? If there were only capitalist morality people would accept that they, others, other animals and the ecosystems of the planet have to suffer for the capital accumulation of a minority. People of course presently tend to cry for justice as they see it within the capitalist system - for more democracy and an 'ethical capitalism', wherein legal controls are effectively put on those who would harm the environment and go to war to increase their business empires for example, and in which financial wealth is more shared out. This is perhaps entirely due to two factors:  

a) It is not yet sufficiently understood that capitalism in its nature cannot be ethical in this way because that is not capital-ism. Certain companies can adopt one or more ethical practices in terms of environmental friendliness/fair trade/responsible advertising/quality products/becoming a cooperative - and the occasional reform that is beneficial to workers/animals/the environment may, after huge efforts, scrape though into law; but whilst the capitalist system remains dominant the effects of these changes will be minor in comparison to the main stream economic forces, and can be gradually eroded, watered down, got around, or swiftly swept away again by financial pressures/takeovers/'emergency measures'/war etc. At present, despite the heroic efforts of many, the damage inflicted on human beings, other animals and the environment by the profit motive is increasing in many ways world wide.  

b) It is not yet sufficiently understood how an ethical society in terms of equality, human rights and the environment can be achieved. Once people understand that the only way that they can achieve what they want is with the community autonomy of common ownership and a moneyless economy - that can therefore supply directly for need rather than profit (profit which is simply to maintain a disconnected but self important ruling elite who make life much more boring, unpleasant and difficult for us) - then hopefully that is what they will work for; that will be the new justice. There is a growing anti-capitalist movement that it seems does not yet have a clear enough concept of/enough consensus about a workable alternative system. It might be said that this is at least in part due to lingering capitalist morality - but at the same time this movement is a manifestation of ethical principles of a different sort, responding to the recognition that the capitalist system is damaging individuals, communities and the biosphere.  In other words, although there is a capitalist style ethic and a capitalist justice system, this is not because there is a fault in the basic concept of ethics, morality or justice, or because morality and justice are essentially capitalist, because these concepts can be and are applied differently.  

There is an interesting point that arises here to do with the fact that the majority do not yet have clear class consciousness or a clear understanding of the socialist alternative. Where this is the case, it means that continuing in some form to support the capitalist system is not a freely made moral choice.

12

It may be that those who regard morality as solely a bourgeois construct are not yet completely free of the indoctrination of the present system. The wholesale claiming of morality by capitalism and establishment religions is to justify capitalist law to us and to make us feel bad, guilty, powerless and subservient so that we can be controlled by a ruling class. But the claim is false - and we thus should not go along with it. It is understandable that there would be a legacy of prejudice against the words 'morality' and 'justice' because of how they have been used - in the course of deception, subjugation, abusive exploitation, torture, abandonment and murder. However, concepts of morality and justice have been used in ways which, with greater knowledge we can conceive of as immoral and unjust, and so in this sense these concepts have been misused or abused. They have also been misused or abused in the sense that they have been used to support a system that gives inordinate power to a minority; a state of affairs that impedes healthy development where it does not pervert it, arrest it or destroy it.  

Capitalism justifies mass starvation, and deprivation of even basic medical care when there could be plenty for all; it justifies war for the business expansion of the most militarily powerful; it justifies enslaving the majority to the will of a minority owning class. Characteristically capitalist morality involves unsympathetic and unforgiving harsh judgment based on false premises and often also on false accusations. This is all symptomatic of an oppressive system; one which is not essentially based on reason, but on force. We thus should not trust it to use words reasonably. Nor should we allow anger about capitalism to make us unreasonable; our anger should not be directed into irrationally condemning elements of our cultural heritage that have been abused by capitalism as much as anything else. 

13

The socialist analysis exposes the truth about our situation and the potential for changing it. It reveals, or more fully reveals the context using a scientific understanding of history and economics; but the case for bringing socialism is made using, and appealing to, scientific understanding and aesthetic appreciation of human well being. The effects that capitalist conditions have on human beings and the environment are frequently exposed in socialist material as a bad thing according to these criteria. It is the scientific understanding and aesthetic appreciation of human well being that produces the motivation for socialism; it produces the will to change the economic conditions and begin a new phase of history. According to the criterion of what is in our interests - i.e. what is good for life - scientifically and aesthetically judged, capitalism is an example of a human construct that we need to get rid of as something that is active in society. It needs to be de-activated. We do not help to do this by denying common meanings of common words which when used correctly can actually confirm our case.  

Denying that there can be a different morality other than capitalist morality 'ever' or 'until is socialism is established' harms the cause because it is false dogma - which has all sorts damaging influences. For example it makes us seem intellectually whacky and inscrutable - not because our basic case is too crazy or complex to understand, but because these denials do not make sense. Humans obviously have a plethora of inclinations, but it is particularly perverse of socialists to deny the natural human inclination to the ethical beliefs and behaviour which are needed for a socialist movement to grow. Such inclinations occur in a dynamic interaction with the rest of the conditions.  

Many different forms of morality are present in society, varying between social groups and between and within individuals. Some morality is only compatible with and only supports capitalism; some which is compatible with certain forms of society in capitalism is also compatible with socialism; and some is compatible only with socialism and struggles in capitalism. Class struggle may well be due in part to worker's individualistic self concern (although even this can be described as a type of morality in that there is a principle of self concern) but it is surely mainly due to concern not for ourselves in such a limited sense but for our family, friends, communities, and environment - indeed for the world. There is now increasing awareness of connectedness, which potentially can overcome the isolating effects of capitalism. The reason that the world is not more horrific than it is, is that although the degree and clarity of socialist consciousness varies enormously, morality compatible with socialism is at work within it. Battles are also being fought in the conscience, and it is in these fields of ethics that humanity still survives to be receptive to the socialist case.  

Some existing ethics take part in fully consciously creating socialism - and some take part in this not so consciously as yet, but by helping to create the conditions that are necessary. Some ethics are revolutionary in this sense, and as revolution occurs other forms of ethics will be revolutionized. The socialist analysis further informs objective judgments about what we need for wellbeing. In the sense that socialist consciousness means more awareness of the truth of our condition, having it means that we have a clearer concept of true justice and ethics according to the criterion of what is good for health in the largest sense.  

We might be fine just cataloging, discussing and deciding things without desire for the well being of anyone, including our own, without responsibility; but as soon as we start having a belief, or gain some knowledge, that some idea/practice is, or even just might be better or worse for us as individuals or groups, as workers or for all humanity - and we care about this - then the concepts of good and bad/right and wrong take part in understanding and expression of what are generally and usefully referred to as our ethical or moral beliefs and behaviour; our ideas about and forms of justice. 

Revolution is about realising the truth about the system and how to change it (the outer conditions), but it is just as much about realising the truth about ourselves (our inner condition) so that we know what we truly want and are motivated to work to achieve our desires. 

14

Ethical terms logically function in language; they can themselves be scientifically analyzed as referring the fact that our thoughts, feelings and behaviour have effects. They draw our attention to observe these effects, in effect giving us certain choices, which also calls on our reasoning and our intent.  

The fact that scientific study is sometimes to a great extent left out, and that ethical codes are sometimes formed more by systems that are based on deception is not the fault of the words/their defined meaning. In fact the definitions of these words call us to attend to the truth of the mater, to overcome prejudice and false conditioning, and allow for us to personally and culturally develop, confirming and discovering what is of value and formulating our choices based on scientific understanding.  

Although the human race has a lot to learn as a whole, some essential knowledge is passed to us from our ancestors with these words, if it is only to be aware that in many ways we are still learning. The definitions do not try to impose any particular morality upon us, but simply acknowledge that we have customs and values by which we measure right and wrong, and refer to the essential value of truth in our cultural evolution.  

So linguistically, ethical terms can be scientifically analysed as having a logical and useful purpose in general, and in particular for exposing the deceptions and abuses of capitalism. In connection to this, what ethical terms refer to - our cultural beliefs, behaviour and political rule/law making, can also be scientifically analysed along with the rest of the human and environmental condition. This involves studying the causes for our cultural beliefs, behaviour, political rule/law making, and the effects that they have. They can then be judged by their effect on human and environmental conditions, which may involve adjustments to our ethics.   

Knowledge of science is essential for creating social change, and would be for sustaining a socialist society. But these things cannot be achieved with science alone. Our artistic nature is also essential; that which values, not in financial terms, but in direct terms of appreciation of life and thus desires to benefit to life, and so has reason to use science. In this sense ethics are the art of life. 

Socialist democratic systems allow for society to learn and change without restrictions being imposed economically and by false/limited and misleading information. Both class consciousness and humanitarian ethics are needed for the establishment of socialism; and a socialist society would enable the increasing manifestation of humanitarian ethics world wide as it would enable the increasing manifestation of many other abilities which make for a healthy, peaceful world.