Ethical Theory of Karl Marx - Term Paper Example

? Ethical Theory of Karl Marx “Once we recognize that "good" is not a quality [but a relation], there is not necessarily a contradiction between yourcalling X good and my calling it not good. If this view is sound, there can be no genuine study of the ethical contribution of Marx's thought. There can also be no ethical science” Karl Marx is revered today, as one of the greatest thinkers of modern history. He is credited and recognized widely as one of the very few economists, who understood and acknowledged the central truth, and reflected the same in his ideologies. A significant portion of the great ethical theories developed by Karl Marx, were the reflection of the social environment, and were directly related to the manner in which the society functioned during those times (Truitt, 2005). The views of Marx with regard to ethics and morality have been an issue of debate among researchers and scholars alike, since a considerable period of time. Various researchers have debated Marx's preference for ethics, and have rejected the claims suggesting that he had no ethics or morality. In fact, he is known to have developed a scientific approach, which seeks to achieve the desired objectives in a morally neutral manner. However according to some others, he pioneered and conceived the idea of ethics based on his observations in the society. The same can be documented with the help of the following: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling intellectual force. The class that has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production so that, thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of material production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas". (Truitt, 2005, Pp. 42) According to some authors, Marxism is starkly different as compared to other socialist systems, which is highly synonymous with its anti-ethical approach. They believe that there is no mention or presence of ethics in his ideologies, and hence no form of ethical judgment (Tucker, 1971). The ethical ideology as proposed by Karl Marx has become obsolete today, due to the application of historical materialism in a socialist society. The laws governed by morality and ethics were introduced to resolve issues related to social antagonism, but at the same time retaining the basic objectives through moral intimidation. The demands related to ethical doctrines, symbolizes the acknowledgment that the said perspectives do not lead to / encourage social antagonisms. Marx’s revolutionary ideologies with regard to philosophy overtly rejected the conventional normative philosophical ethics and at the same time, asserted the legacy of a constructive science (Hodges, 1962). Thus on the basis of the facts presented by several authors, it was claimed by many that Marx did not endorse ethics in his theories, as the basic element of ethics was missing in most of his works. Moreover, according to them the theories put forward by Marx, hardly reflected his preference to and attitude towards ethics and morality. This perspective was also challenged by several authors. They believed that the instances quoted by other authors to reject Marx’s attitude towards ethics and morality, and dismiss the same on those grounds, reflected a highly empiricist notion of science. However, it is highly doubtful to assume that Marx indeed in fact, endorse such a notion of science. In order to better understand the claims made by Marx, they could be studied in the light of those made by Hegel, with regard to science, since his views were largely influenced by those of the latter. Also, it was argued that Marx was not a scientist but a philosopher, and hence expecting him to be impartial and unflustered in his writings and observations would be a far-fetched idea. This claim could be substantiated with the fact that a significant portion of his writings was based on political economy. In his writings on Capital, he has openly criticized and denounced such issues as self-centeredness; abuse / misuse of power; separation; squalor; deprivation etc and the likes; which tend to relate to capitalism (Evans, 1975). Most of Marx’s writings are marked by normative and partisan environment. His dedication to the specific type of social order; which he perceived as highly developmental and progressive in nature, is quite apparent and present throughout his works. Such a commitment on his part, goes well beyond his personal commitment and one which he believed that should be shared by others as well. Several such issues have led to heated debates regarding Marx’s attitudes towards ethics and morality. Some have claimed that Marx did harbor certain ethical and moral tendencies and his views were highly evaluative in nature, however, the same were embedded in his scientific views. It has thus been argued that his scientific approach was non-normative in nature, and hence was impartial, objective and eloquent. Moreover his preference and support for ethics and morality can be justified from his personal approach which condemned various critical features which were specific to the capitalist society; as well as his views of communism as being a higher stage of society. Thus on the basis of these arguments and observations it can be stated that: The theoretical constructs applied by Marx, for definite practical reasons, the models of a hypothetical labor process and the capitalist labor processes were neutral, and hence no ethical proposals were implied. On one hand there are claims made by a section of authors and scholars that upon a careful assessment of societies in the past, the universal characteristics of the labor processes which are common to all could be firmly established. While on the other hand, it was argued that on the assessment of a capitalist labor process, certain specific features which were common to that process can be easily found; although, one can easily draw moral implications from such an observation between the models presented by Marx. The ethical inference of the same can be established by comparing the two models (Evans, 1975). Marx embarks to estimate the occurrences on the basis of observations, and proposes his own prediction based on the observations, and define the prospective roles of people in the society. However, most of his work rarely reflects his preference to morals and ethics, with regard to economic and material laws, and hence reflect a fairly common political view albeit with a strong ethical bias (Burzun, 1958). The interpretation of the objectives of Marx point to the fact that his notions of science are simply an addition of ethics, although the two (i.e. science and ethics) remain largely independent of each other. This however, is in stark contrast to Marx’s ideologies of uniting the two – science and morals / ethics which remain exclusive to each other, contrary to his attempt to unite the two and present an all-embracing science. Also, such an analysis further suggests that his theories and preference for ethical and moral aspects barely had any solid foundation and were largely his own personal views, or that he failed to defend his beliefs by portraying them aptly in his works. The above discussion suggests two drastically opposing conclusions, i.e. either Marx’s ethics were highly private and uninformed in nature, despite his strong advocacy of social aspects of life, and that communism could be established on a coherent and non-random basis. The above listed contradiction could be substantiated with the argument that Marx’s perspectives were primarily flawed. His moral theory was an intrinsic and inseparable aspect of his scientific views. However this view was also refuted by various authors in subsequent works published over the years. It was also proposed by various authors that the arguments presented above, with regard to the contradictions found in Marx’s theories and approach regarding morality and ethics, does not in any way imply that Marx did not have a moral theory. A theory does not need to be formally published or documented in order to be perceived a definite ideology. The formulation of a theory or confirming to a certain ideology and actually publishing a moral theory are two starkly different things. Hence it was argued that although Marx did not actually present his moral and ethical views, in a formal manner it cannot be argued that he did not actually have one. It has been explained by certain authors that in order to actively engage in the process of establishing a morally and ethically motivated theory it is necessary for the authors to suspend their commitments and affirm their decisions and conclusions to formally establish their conscious and express approval to moral principles and display their preference for the alternatives chosen by them (Oilman, 1971). The steps thus proposed by several authors to affirm the stipulations required for ethical inquiry, might be checked regarding their plausibility for ascertaining the presence of ethics and morality in their theories. This ideology is however refuted by some, stating that in order for a theory to be considered as ethical or moral, the use of certain prescribed terms is not necessary, and presupposing certain words as being ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ in nature, would be a logical fallacy. There is no definite vocabulary or language of morals, or a specific set of words which indicate that the theory is indicative of moral or ethical perspectives. There are evidences which state that the mere use of a certain specific set of words which are generally regarded as moral or ethical in nature, does not imply that the theory is ethical in nature. Similarly the lack of such prescribed set of words, cannot be used as a premise to dismiss the theory as being non-ethical. Thus, implying that the lack of moral or ethical words in Marx’s theories, cannot be used as a justification to dismiss his strong ethical perspectives. The issue regarding the use of specific vocabulary which is largely considered to be ethical / moral was raised on account of the various works presented by Marx. His general lack of using conventional and widely accepted moral language is apparent and there are various instances wherein such an apparent lack of ethical words has been brought to the fore and widely criticized. Although despite such lack of use of traditionally moral words, he has widely criticized the society and talked about the morals which were tainted on account of the presence of capitalism within societies (Marx, 1972). The same can be substantiated with the following excerpts: “The standpoint of independent morality ... is based . . . on the consciousness of human dignity. [The] morality [of Rudolph, a character in a book Marx attacks] , on the contrary, is based on the consciousness of human weakness” (Brenkert, 1983, Pp. 16). “Only within the community has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; hence personal freedom becomes possible only within the community” (MECW, 5:78 in Brenkert, 1983, Pp. 16) “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and classes antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (MECW, 6:506, in Brenkert, 1983, Pp. 16) Thus, the use of or lack thereof of moral and ethical words / vocabulary in defining economic theories, does not in itself substantiate one’s support or aversion towards such issues. The reluctance on the part of Marx, with regard to use of such highly conventional and generally used terms to reflect their own perspectives, does not indicate his disdain for ethics. There is not enough evidence to substantiate such a hypothesis. Also, various other authors have criticized or defied the use of such conventional forms of ethics citing their relative inability to develop an ethically sound theory. Hence, the objections merely on such grounds does not sound prudent and dismiss the highly likely possibility of Marx's implicit support for morality and ethics. One of the basic and fundamental objectives of Marx as observed from his theories was to present a critique of the existing society, a fact which can be substantiated from a close observation of his theories. And in order to critique the elements present in the society, it is an absolute necessity to include certain terms which amply define the situation as it exists, for the theory to be considered apt and acceptable. The theories so formed, in order to be effective, must not be independent of the various practical activities in which the society indulged in, in order to sustain themselves. Marx's theories, thus illustrate the 'reality' or the situation 'as it is', which is nothing more than the depiction of the existing activities in the society. Hence, it in no way, implies that Marx, had ceased to perceive the significance of morality and ethics in modern day society, but in fact implies that he perceived the problems in a totally different light. References: Brenkert, G. G., (1983). Marx's ethics of freedom, Routledge Publication, Pp. 16 Burzun, J., (1958). Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Pp. 163 Evans, M., (1975). Karl Marx, Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University Press, Pp. 188 Hodges, D. C., (1972). Historical materialism in ethics, Philosophy and phenomenological research, Vol. 23, Pp. 6 Marx, K., (1972). Inaugural address of the working men's international association, The Marx-Engels Reader, ed., Robert C. Tucker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1972, Pp. 376 Oilman, B., (1971). Is there a Marxian ethic? Science and Society, Vol. 35, Pp. 156-160 Truitt, W. H., (2005). Marxist ethics: A short exposition, International Publishers Co., Pp. 42-45 Tucker, R. C., (1971). Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press, Pp. 12 Read More