CHAPTER I SOCIALISM AND ETHICS
§ 1 the Socialist Attitude to Ethics
Pure Marxism sees Socialism not as a political plan but as a natural outcome of historical development. It does not argue that Socialism should be created or that the current system is bad. Instead, it suggests that Socialism will happen because of certain laws of history. Some people support Socialism because they believe it will make production more efficient or because they think it is fairer. However, Marxism doesn't agree with the idea that Socialism is better for moral reasons. Supporters focused on efficiency don't need moral reasons, while those who argue for fairness must still support Socialism even if it isn’t the most efficient option.
§ 2 Eudemonistic Ethics and Socialism
Eudemonistic ethics critiques ethical socialism by arguing that ethical and economic concepts cannot be treated as separate and independent. Ethical goals serve human ambitions, and while they help in the pursuit of happiness, they fit into a broader value system where all aims are ranked according to their significance. Absolute ethical values opposing economic values cannot be maintained since all actions serve ultimate human interests.
In individual actions, one solely focuses on personal desires, but in society, actions must align with collective well-being. Social goals become part of personal values rather than constraints from higher purposes. This means that what benefits society ultimately benefits the individual as well. The distinction between selfish (egoistic) and selfless (altruistic) motives is flawed. In a cooperative society, personal and collective interests harmonize, proving that altruism can arise from egoistic motives.
Society compels individuals to operate within a system beneficial to everyone, and thus individuals protect society not out of obligation but for their interests. However, individuals may not always see what truly benefits them and can act against their own best interests. This is where social constraints and state powers come into play—not as forces that impose alien aims but as necessary safeguards against individuals who might harm the collective.
Liberalism, utilitarianism, and eudemonism do not oppose the state; they envision its role in protecting life and property while facilitating private ownership. They acknowledge the state's apparatus as essential but reject its use for goals beyond preserving social order. Additionally, social norms can sometimes influence behavior without legal enforcement, illustrating the power of morals and customs.
Ethical judgments of good and evil relate to the consequences of actions in pursuit of defined ends. Ethical valuation is based on how actions contribute to ultimate goals, merging happiness with morality. The debate among philosophers regarding the ultimate good has reaffirmed the connection between morality, happiness, and eudemonism. Those who accept the eudemonistic nature of ethics no longer need to engage in discussions surrounding ethical socialism, since they recognize that all moral valuations stem from human well-being. Ultimately, ethical systems based on duty inevitably align with eudemonism.
§ 3 a Contribution to the Understanding of Eudemonism
Eudemonism is often misinterpreted by formalist ethics, which suggests that happiness is only about satisfying physical desires. Although many people focus on basic pleasures, Eudemonism states that human striving naturally leads towards a broader understanding of happiness. The idea of fulfilling oneself shares this view because it emphasizes using personal strengths and taking action. Some thinkers mistakenly believe that an inner force guides moral actions, but they do not explain why some goals are considered good or bad.
Moral philosophy that ignores the true nature of human beings overlooks important facts about human behavior. Recognizing that individuals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, along with the need for social cooperation, shows that self-interest can actually help society. This view often clashes with the idea of duty, particularly when individuals might have to sacrifice their lives for a greater cause. However, in serious situations, people may find themselves choosing survival over the needs of the community, indicating that sacrifices are often tied to self-preservation.
Both moralists and economists struggle to explain values, showing the challenge of connecting individual goals with social values. Liberal social philosophy helps by showing that when people engage in social responsibilities, they support their own best interests, making temporary sacrifices for bigger long-term rewards.
§ 1 the Socialist Attitude to Ethics
Pure Marxism sees Socialism not as a political plan but as a natural outcome of historical development. It does not argue that Socialism should be created or that the current system is bad. Instead, it suggests that Socialism will happen because of certain laws of history. Some people support Socialism because they believe it will make production more efficient or because they think it is fairer. However, Marxism doesn't agree with the idea that Socialism is better for moral reasons. Supporters focused on efficiency don't need moral reasons, while those who argue for fairness must still support Socialism even if it isn’t the most efficient option.
§ 2 Eudemonistic Ethics and Socialism
Eudemonistic ethics critiques ethical socialism by arguing that ethical and economic concepts cannot be treated as separate and independent. Ethical goals serve human ambitions, and while they help in the pursuit of happiness, they fit into a broader value system where all aims are ranked according to their significance. Absolute ethical values opposing economic values cannot be maintained since all actions serve ultimate human interests.
In individual actions, one solely focuses on personal desires, but in society, actions must align with collective well-being. Social goals become part of personal values rather than constraints from higher purposes. This means that what benefits society ultimately benefits the individual as well. The distinction between selfish (egoistic) and selfless (altruistic) motives is flawed. In a cooperative society, personal and collective interests harmonize, proving that altruism can arise from egoistic motives.
Society compels individuals to operate within a system beneficial to everyone, and thus individuals protect society not out of obligation but for their interests. However, individuals may not always see what truly benefits them and can act against their own best interests. This is where social constraints and state powers come into play—not as forces that impose alien aims but as necessary safeguards against individuals who might harm the collective.
Liberalism, utilitarianism, and eudemonism do not oppose the state; they envision its role in protecting life and property while facilitating private ownership. They acknowledge the state's apparatus as essential but reject its use for goals beyond preserving social order. Additionally, social norms can sometimes influence behavior without legal enforcement, illustrating the power of morals and customs.
Ethical judgments of good and evil relate to the consequences of actions in pursuit of defined ends. Ethical valuation is based on how actions contribute to ultimate goals, merging happiness with morality. The debate among philosophers regarding the ultimate good has reaffirmed the connection between morality, happiness, and eudemonism. Those who accept the eudemonistic nature of ethics no longer need to engage in discussions surrounding ethical socialism, since they recognize that all moral valuations stem from human well-being. Ultimately, ethical systems based on duty inevitably align with eudemonism.
§ 3 a Contribution to the Understanding of Eudemonism
Eudemonism is often misinterpreted by formalist ethics, which suggests that happiness is only about satisfying physical desires. Although many people focus on basic pleasures, Eudemonism states that human striving naturally leads towards a broader understanding of happiness. The idea of fulfilling oneself shares this view because it emphasizes using personal strengths and taking action. Some thinkers mistakenly believe that an inner force guides moral actions, but they do not explain why some goals are considered good or bad.
Moral philosophy that ignores the true nature of human beings overlooks important facts about human behavior. Recognizing that individuals seek pleasure and try to avoid pain, along with the need for social cooperation, shows that self-interest can actually help society. This view often clashes with the idea of duty, particularly when individuals might have to sacrifice their lives for a greater cause. However, in serious situations, people may find themselves choosing survival over the needs of the community, indicating that sacrifices are often tied to self-preservation.
Both moralists and economists struggle to explain values, showing the challenge of connecting individual goals with social values. Liberal social philosophy helps by showing that when people engage in social responsibilities, they support their own best interests, making temporary sacrifices for bigger long-term rewards.