What is useful to us is moral

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by kowalskil, Aug 18, 2011.

  1. kowalskil Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    Boshevik Morality


    1) Several years ago I wrote a short book (with 54 references) entitled “Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime.” It is now freely available online. Let me show you the content of Section 3.7, devoted to a very peculiar kind of “morality.” It might lead to an interesting discussion.

    2) ... According to Lenin and Stalin, morality should be subordinated to the ideology of proletarian revolution. Denying the validity of religion-based morality, they wrote: what is useful to us is moral, what is harmful to us is immoral. Morality is a weapon in class struggle. Party and Komsomol members were drilled to accept that position, and to act accordingly. The justification was simple. The world is full of injustice and immorality. We want to replace it by a much better "scientifically designed" social structure -- communism. That is why what we do is right, by definition. ...

    3) Closely related to morality is the issue of convictions. To a true Bolshevik convictions are determined by the will of the party. Here is how this was explained to a friend in 1932 by an old Bolshevik, Juri Pyatakov (31): "Since you do not believe that people's convictions can change in a short period of time, you conclude that our statements ... are insincere, that they are lies. ... I agree that people who are not Bolsheviks, the category of ordinary people in general, cannot make an instant change, a turn, amputating their own convictions. ... We are not like other people. We are a party who make the impossible possible. ... And if the party demands it, if it is necessary or important for the party, we will be able by an act of will to expel from our brains in twenty-four hours ideas we have held for years.... Yes, I will see black where I thought I saw white, or may still see it, because for me there is no life outside the party or apart from agreement with it."

    4) It is ironic that in 1937 Pyatakov was accused of antiparty activities and executed at once. The same happened to Bukharin in 1938. In big show trials both men confessed. Were they tortured or were they persuaded to willingly serve the party for the last time?


    ======================================
    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA. I am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

    It is an autobiography based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Since there were no formal investigations we won't ever know for sure.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,891
    Communism is a good model for how to run a nation, provided you have a nation of broken people loyal to Communism. This makes it flawed.

    It would be nice if our government officials were modest men earning an income and working hard making important changes- then going back to the farm as George Washington did. But nowadays we want the best and brightest to run things for us- professional politicians.

    90% of everything is crap, but it's the 10% that's not that keeps our society moving; the giant wheels spinning. And those 10% represent the best we can expect from our elected officials and our priority should be on that and not politicism.

    George Washington could not run the USA and it's 50 states today- you need a whole support team to run America. Interestingly, Russia had that with their cronyism which again is a fault to Communism.

    What are your ideas to run the business of America?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kowalskil Registered Member

    Messages:
    52


    I wish I could say something useful to those who debate "the business of America."
    ..............................................

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

    It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
     
  8. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    "What is useful to us is moral" Specifically what do you mean by that statement. Because not everything that's useful to me will be useful to you. Does that mean what's moral for me may not be moral for you? Perhaps you think I need a government to tell me what is useful and what's moral, and if I don't like it I can die along with my family and make room for the true believers?
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I like to define morality in terms of behavior that optimizes a culture. Moral behavior allows the team to be greater than the sum of its parts. Immorality, is not designed for the team, but is more designed for individual optimization.

    For example, stealing is considered immoral. If nobody in a group stole, the entire group/team is much better off and the team is optimized. There is little need to be paranoid, little need to buy security devices, and little need to lock doors, etc. This makes more resources available to the team.

    Relative to the individual, stealing rather than working, might allow some individuals to become better optimized. But this immoral self optimization will have an impact on the team. There will be a social costs due to fear, doubt, resources tied up in defenses, etc. The team will have to pay to make up the difference.

    A strong team can absorb some level immorality. If only a few people steal, the culture can still be very strong, even though resources will get tied up for bull crap. But if everyone decided to steal, to become individually optimized, the team breaks down until there is nothing to steal. Typically, only a small group gets to be crooks and the rest will pay.

    Stalin tried to create a culture that would optimize himself instead of the team. He allowed immorality to become law; jail, torture and killing. He could not optimize the entire team, so the team could become stronger than the sum of all its parts. His optimization required killing part of the team to create a subset that was sort of an illusionary optimization. But as time goes on, this team never became stronger than the sum of its parts, because of the too high ratio of immorality.

    Consider the immorality called killing; thou shall not kill. Any team would be optimized if nobody kills. All members of the team could walk in security and feel closer to all the others. If there are heated arguments, you can fight and go home without fear of death. Although good for the group, this may not optimize natural born killers. The team may be able to handle a few murders without breaking down. But murder for all, would not be possible, or else the team will break down and not recover.

    Historically, the upper crust got to be immoral, but the majority, which were the poor, had to tow the moral line, so the cutural team did not break down. In modern times, religion and tax payers tow the line (morality and social costs) to support atheist induced immorality, so the team does not break down.

    For some guys, rape would be an easier way to optimize sexuality. This would be considered immoral, since it would impact the social team. But culture could support a few rapists, allowing them to optimize, without breaking down. But it will require many others pick up the tab because of the social cost of immorality. Moral rage can occur when some are forced to walk the high road for the team, while others get to live off them as they walk the low road. Eventually, there is a feeling that the parasites need to tow the line, so the burdern on the team is less.

    The death penality would end the cost of immorality. Life in prison perpetuates the social cost of killing. Those who are used to being immoral want to make sure the immorality fund stays high. But moral people are sick of the ever increasing immorality tax.

    The instability in America compared to past generations reflects the cost of atheist immorality. You can't spread immorality too far or else fewers towers of the line will not be strong enough to pull the load.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I have a very narrow view of morality: It's what is required for the advancement of civilization. I take it as given that civilization is a worthy goal, since no one I've ever met would prefer to live like our Paleolithic ancestors, never rising beyond the bottom steps on Maslow's Hierarchy: Survival and Security.
    • Civilization requires peace among its members. After the Agricultural Revolution, when people began living together in larger groups than nomadic hunter-gatherers, this created greater efficiency which increased prosperity. However, this efficiency and prosperity are not possible if people must devote significant attention and other resources to protecting themselves from each other. This was probably not an issue in the small extended-family tribes of the Paleolithic, in which everyone was related and had depended on and cared for each other since birth.
    • Civilization requires cooperation among its members. Cooperation brings about division of labor and economies of scale, which together are the engine that creates the surplus wealth (or "capital") that is the measure of prosperity and allows the diversion of scarce resources to goods and services that are not essential to survival.
    • Civilization requires tolerance among its members. Experimentation is the way discoveries are made, some of which will, statistically, result in improved ways of doing things. People must be free to be different or that experimentation will not take place. Furthermore, intolerance breeds hatred, which works against the maintenance of peace and cooperation.
    • As civilization advances, it comes to require education of its members. Without advanced learning, the last two Paradigm Shifts (the Industrial Revolution and the Electronic Revolution) could not have happened, leaving more than 99% of the human race forever doomed to back-breaking "careers" in the production and distribution of food. Education and the science and technology it makes possible have also brought about other advances, ranging from a reduction of infant mortality from its historical level of around 80%, to the availability of professionally composed and performed music to the entire population more than two or three times a year. Each of those advances has, in its own way, made our lives immensely and inarguably happier.
    There are other aspects to morality such as honesty and simply carrying one's own weight, but those are more obvious, not to mention just as necessary in a stone age hunter-gatherer society as in a civilization.
     
  11. kowalskil Registered Member

    Messages:
    52
    Thank you for interesting general comments--food for thought.

    ..............................................

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia). A am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

    It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).
     

Share This Page