Two kinds of ethics

[kowalskil]

TWO KINDS OF MORALITIES, MARXIST VERSUS THEOLOGICAL​

I am reading interesting comments about communist morality, in a book devoted to Judaism, published in 1975. The authors are two rabbis, D. Prager and J. Telushkin. A Catholic or Russian orthodox theologian would probably make similar observations.

Marxists and theologians, they write, "are both motivated by the desire to perfect the world and establish a utopia on earth. ... Both promote all-encompassing worldviews. But they diametrically oppose one another in almost every other way." The authors remind us that communists rejected "all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e. God] and nonclass concepts," as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology.

Theologians, on the other hand, hold "that morality transcends economic, national, and individual interests." God's commandments are objective rather than subjective. Evil human acts are condemned, no matter what economic or political gains are derived from them. That is the essential difference. Greed in human nature, they emphasize, "may have helped create capitalism, but capitalism did not create greed in human nature."

Theologians also deplore social injustice. But they reject brutal proletarian revolutions because "the roots of evil and injustice lie not in economics or society but in man himself." This has to do with the concept of freedom. "For Marxism, which conceives of the world in materialist terms, bondage is defined solely as servitude to external sources such as slave owners, capitalist bosses, or other forms of material inequality. Freedom is liberation from such servitude." People, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, must get rid of economic chains binding them. Then they will automatically cease to be evil.

Theologians, on the other hand, see two kinds of liberation, from external and from internal bonds. "Once liberation from external servitude takes place, one must then liberate oneself from internal domination, the domination of one's life by passions, needs, irrationality and wants." The conflict between theologians and Marxists "is not economic, it is moral." Proletarian dictatorship was practiced in several countries; the results show that "when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as crual as their predecessors."

Philosophical differences about morality, among different kinds of theologians, are minimal, as far as I know. But their attempts to produce moral behaviors are not very successful. Why is it so? What can be done to improve the situation, to bring our reality a little closer to "utopia" dreams?

Ludwik

 

[dogtowner]

The doctor is in !

not sure I agree that theologians seek a utopia. at least in total. Christian ones in particular. we should be focused on individuals and salvation. now if successful at that the world might well become a nicer place. but evil still exists and will till the end days.

 

[Cruella]

Excellent.


Ever hear of this one?





The 5000 Year Leap








The book lists how the Founding Fathers of the United States used 28 fundamental beliefs to create a society based on morality, faith, and ethics, which Skousen asserts resulted in more progress having been achieved in the last 200 years than in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined.

 

[steveox]

If this man was President of the united states we wouldn't have ethic problems today

 

[Iolo2]

The one thing you can say with absolute certainty about Marx is that he detested utopianism, and refused totally to do other than point to the way the vast working majority were likely to shape the future, not to describe some individual pipe-dream of his own.

 

[Cruella]

The one thing you can say with absolute certainty about Marx is that he detested utopianism, and refused totally to do other than point to the way the vast working majority were likely to shape the future, not to describe some individual pipe-dream of his own.

Marx was a slug. have you ever read about his life? The non liberal version on hero worship.

 

[Iolo2]

Marx was a slug. have you ever read about his life? The non liberal version on hero worship.

Seems better than most men of his time, but as imperfect, certainly, as an American. What matters is what he wrote and how it has been developed. It's not a holy book, nor did he have any claims to be the Messiah.