ETHICS AND SOCIETY: A MARXIST INTERPRETATION OE VALUE
Milton Fisk , although increasing current issues of ethics and Marx’s theory of value is affected by these developments . It is based on the validity of historical materialism as a theory ol social formations and normative structures , while reaffirming the validity of a Trotskyist strategy of class struggle , political democracy and the state. In the first part of Marxism Anil ethics , Fisk describes the perspective of ethical relativism , which is interspersed with ethical absolutism in the second half . Rie Part I is an analysis of the social understanding of the person , both ol remaining parts of the book reflects the conditions of human action and a prospectus for a rights theory . Fisk argues that the Marxist theory of ethics is ” relativist ic class” ( XVI ) . 1 to apply to carry out a class or group must not be valid for another class or group and ” the right thing to be determined by an examination of what in the end , given the primacy of the class , the progress of the implementation of the trends in its class “( XVI). relativistic ethics class is a form of ethical naturalism . ethical naturalism as the first assumption that the ethical life and all it depends entirely encompassed in the world of ol people, their groups and tiling materials they use . him I second postulate of ethical naturalism states that human nature is the ultimate foundation of the origin , the authority and validity of ethical principles . ( 21 ) since most modern ethical theories such as utilitarianism , contractualism and emotivism would also meet these conditions , the Marxist stand relativistic ethics class other variants Fisk develops ” social understanding ol person . ” According to this view , is a universal human nature does not exist, the idea of ??”man is weak , not strong nature ” ( 101 ) . This weak theory is only compatible with the assumption that basic needs neutral, as called “survival needs ” ( 93 ) – the need for food , support ( cooperation) and deliberation are constants characteristic of human nature . Survival needs are always socially determined . Both the structure ot Lelt needs and ways to satisfy them are social activities , as a result of human life in groups .
On this basis Fisk criticized utilitarianism the structure of the needs and desires can be a history ol Givens , contractualism and, secondly , no alternative relativism ” as the absolute conception of human nature based on must be empty ” ( 73) . Class ethical relativism is not ethical because it not postulate the priority of the right . The tightness of the principles relates to social structures . Teleologists turn wrong not to consider. The ” limits to what is good for the social structures ” (84 )
The discussion Fisk social understanding of the person , his analysis of alienation in the light of the distinction between “imposed” on the ” internal ” contains many interesting things , but ultimately unconvincing . Because if a Marxist point of view , even survival needs socially structured , how can we distinguish between ” imposed ” requirements “false ” and ” internal” , “true” without recourse to a concept of human action being that historical data structures transcends must just ? Fisk not solve the problem , but it solves the simple statement that is only compatible with “real class interests ” are the ones who really need. ” Interest in real class ” is the only normative criterion requires that Fisk determining t ight and good. Action is good compared to a particular group, provided one that in some respects the interests the group , while a person is entitled to a group to carry out ” an action by putting obstacles in the way of this person did this action would reduce ” (34). the features of interest in this group So whether conscientious objection is a civil law should be determined by ” empirically estimate the prospects of his class ” (127 ) . On the issue of the right to freedom of expression Fisk reasons too ( 208ff ) . Now if any ethics class about why that asking the goodness and ightness decide? ‘The interests of the working class ” a criterion For each person representing the interests of the class to which it belongs is the morally relevant point . But if we can not explain why the interests of a class should be preferred moral and political interests on the other , then a simple choice, the struggle for power (maybe correctly) , or both , determine the correct and good. Class ethical relativist ethics sounds like nihilism and political opportunism . Fisk ignored a central application that Marx , unlike his disciples , ethical nihilism saves. Since his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy beginning OJ Riglil Marx said that the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and the emancipation of the working class would mean universal human emancipation . If Marx can not be settled here. Equal On the contrary , I think it is wrong to attribute to the messianic role of the working class to end not only his own suffering and exploitation was , but all other forms of domination and injustice also . The point is whether Fisk a relativistic ethics class that is more than the ethical nihilism without any such appeal to universal human emancipation or without arguing why the class contradictions of today’s society is one who can destroy . Defend interests of man Fisk implies that the “class interests ” is a knowable definable metaphysical entity to which we can use to limit the rights and evaluate human virtue. In the history of the twentieth century Marxism – Leninism , a metaphysical concept of the proletariat was after another as justification to consolidate his power against the ruling class interests often likely seized li is disappointing that Milton Fisk is the task of the Marxist theory of ethics to an anti – not see authoritarian , democratic and emancipatory Marxist morality and develop political , but justifies a position whose disastrous moral and political implications that we can not ignore today honestly .