Social Democrats in the Wilderness

[Oexmelin]

Of course moral thinking drove the formation of the abolitionist movement.  But that formation occurred (and only could occur) within a particuliar social-material context in which slavery had already long ceased to exist, and its absence become a fundamental aspect of the social fabric. 

Then let's test the reverse: would you, could you, maintain that the social-material context in which slavery existed, or was abolished could only occur within a particular moral context ?

[Martinus]

I have a feeling Oexmelin and Sheilbh are arguing completely different things.

To Oexmelin: The only way a common morality-based community like Christendom could exist was because anyone outside of that morality (defined by religion) was immediately outside of the community as well so the morality rules did not apply to them. This is hardly a goal we should be aspiring to.

[Martinus]

Which is why the examples quoted of the internet recreating communities is itself symptomatic: you never quite deal with your neighbors on the internet, and, while you might create solidarities, those are solidarities which I feel are in a vaccuum. There are no constraints, no day-to-day interaction, only an opt-in opt-out situation, which is not quite a true community, where bad things happen and you are forced to deal with having to live together. You create customized, tailored communities. The downside, for example, of living with a few trolls on a board are very slight, whereas having to learn with, and contend with, political opponents that you can meet at church, school, on your doorsteps is what creates sympathy, and empathy .

Only that those parochial communities where such proximity existed were hardly full of sympathy and empathy. Quite contrary - history teaches that such societies were extremely intolerant of any deviancy and exterminated it (whether physically or at least socially and politically) with an extreme prejudice. Show me one historical example of a society where such sympathy and empathy existed that was actually greater than what we have today. This seems to me like another of "kids these days" rants, nothing more. 

[Oexmelin]

I have a feeling Oexmelin and Sheilbh are arguing completely different things.

Not quite. I have been lead "upstream" through the conversation with Minsky, in trying to see what's the space for morals in human communities, and how morals should or do, play a role in society. Once upon a time, I feel, the material organization of society was meant to reflect morality: the pursuit of a just society, whether through equality or merit, or what have you. My general feeling is that we keep the material component strong, celebrate the evacuation of morals, and look towards a society that is not particularly just, but rather legalistic.

As for the "goal we should be striving for", my point is to wonder if we can still build communities at all, if the only thing we try to have to link each other is a-moral Law. In other words, I wonder if we can still make "goals we should be striving for" at all, if we discard any sense of morality.

Again, a "sense of morality" should not necessarily be a moral code of conduct as those we associate with Christianity, or those requested by bigots, for instance. Humanism, to me, is inseparable from "a sense of morality", for instance. So is the dignity of man. It does not need to be totalitarian in spirit either: I think the celebration of debate, of the political life for itself, is - or rather *needs* to be moral. People need to be strongly *believing* in those to engage in democratic life - if not, they will be content to engage with *rules*. To repeat myself, what I fear is not the fact that people will disagree on what the Common Good *is*. It is the fact that people do not care about making it a "Good" at all.

[Martinus]

Ok, in that case I think you and Sheilbh are wrong in your premise that morality or "common good" thinking is absent from modern politics. Every bigger legislation or, say, public spending decision, is ultimately a moral/common good decision - look at the health care reform debate in the US - it is at its core a debate about moral choices. The thing is, you can build a good moral case for going either way because you always have conflicting moral principles at stake and need to make a choice.

Frankly, if you want people to have more empathy for each other, including for people of opposing views, you need LESS morality in politics, and more of a "dirty compromise" thinking, that is actually more relativist and deal-oriented, than principle-oriented.

If you come from moral positions, you have babykillers vs. mullahs, and no debate is possible.