File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9801, message 514


Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 02:57:52 -0800
From: bill hard <billhard-AT-netwizards.net>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Abortion & Human Nature



Bill writes!
>
>Abortion is as old as the human species. Although we can't get into the head
>of one of our early progenitors, it is unlikely that the mechanisms for
>moral choice were any different than those of today. The should or should
>not of carrying a child in an economically stressed tribe was probably not
>an uncommon event, whether or not "moral significance" was attached to the
>decision. It was, as someone may have posted, more of an existential or
>pragmatic decision. This does NOT mean that it was without emotional
>feelings,  which could have been everything from relief to sadness and remorse.

RM: First you argued that people were arguing some sort of moral determinism
only to come with your own version of this stuff pasted on to previous
societies.

Bill: I argued no such thing. If it came across that way it was not
intended. I believe morality to be nothing more than an assignation of
feelings at its root.

RM: I doubt very much that moral considerations had anything to do
with one of the squaws or more killing their children. But much more to to
with availibility of food for the tribe connected to climate and the need to
move to where the food was..Not to mention being at war with another tribe.
In fact children "when times were good" were considered a good thing in the
tribes and there are extensive descriptions in history of warring tribes
taking both women and children not to kill them but incorporate in a tribe
and give it new blood.. On the religous scene they certainly were not into
the Chatholic church version, nor islam on this stuff either. These views in
fact came much later and were instilled on the tribes by missionaries who
were members of societies higher up the heirarchy..Not necessesarily any
better and usually far worse then religions of the tribes..

bill: I generally agree (thiugh I don't like terms such as "higher up"), and
there's nothing  inconsistant with my post.

>There seems to be a tendency by many on this board (as well as all others)
>to search for moral absolutes. There seems to be an instinctive aversion to
>moral relativism. Perhaps our minds, as pattern makers, lead us to formulate
>rules. They have proved quite useful to societal cohesion. They are
>particularly useful to totalitarian ones.

RM: This is not true either. In fact the predominate society and its
institutions make the rules and individuals mistakenly believe that they
have come to this position all by themselves..a glaring example in the
litttle boys world is the human need of sexual pleasure..When I was a kid
the boys used to be jerking off on the rooftops. I think the myths and guilt
came from society. In fact this was the abortion debate applied to the boys
in the existing society. Like playing with your prick to much and it might
rot off or the chatholic version of this stuff being some sort of mortal
sin! I wish the boys on this list would be as honest with women and their
right to and abortion as they were to themselves on the rooftops. Actually
there is no difference!

Bill: This is not relevant to my post except in terms of guilt being induced
by society.


Totalitarian society is usually dictated by what powers controll the guns
and the morals are adapted to the ruling strata of a given society. The
church which is a remnant of fuedal society and with its own historical and
economic position to protect and allso international has proven how well it
can adapt to all kinds of regimes and survive..Its "spiritual and moral"
grasp on societies could have been broken if the Bolsheviks had stayed in
power and extended the October Revolution to other parts of the world.
However we got Stalinism which made a historic compromise which this fuedal
remnant of reactionary thought and practice..
>
bill: Here is where I disagree somewhat. I don't believe "the morals are
adapted to the ruling strata" but rather the other way round - The ruling
strata create the morality and it is the rest that must adopt these values.


>I suspect that many so-called Marxists unconsciously believe that the
>Hobbesian notion of "human nature" is essentially correct, that we as humans
>are:  egocentric, greedy, possessive, covetous, idolatrous, lecherous,
>conceited, "jealous, stubborn, rebellious, antisocial, hateful to all who
>invade their personal space, homicidal, striving for inequality, and trying
>to outdo everyone else."! Some will say it is our ability to reason  and
>devise formulas to repress or deflect these "urges" that enable a society to
>function.

RM: I can not buy this stuff either. Hobbson who ever he or she was is just
full
of shit..
I think that we should stick to basics like we are derived from apes with a
rather large brain with the will to survive..The rest of the stuff is
implanted by a given society...We should also stick to more scientific
evaluations of behavior. thus it is not good to fuck your mother or your
sister not because of any moral complications but in fact inbreeding creates
a weakened individual species for the race..The rest of it is meerly moral
and religous hype imposed by the rulers that be to control the poeble and in
the case of the church managed to outlive a well deserving death in the age
of proletarian revolution..

bill: You completely underestimate the complexity of the biological human
being. I include all emotional responses with the biological. You give a
purely intellectual "reason" for the incest "taboo" which I'm quite sure was
adhered to (and is by many animals) without particular reasoning ability. I
don't even like the words "Will to Survive". Sounds mystical.


>Meanwhile behavior exhibiting: desire to share, cooperation, love
>for others, empathy, instincts for conflict resolution, feelings of "fair
>play", fear and discomfort in being isolated & alone, are all but ignored.
>My claim is that they ALL are part of the constellation under a rubric
>called "human nature". As Robert Wright observes: "Friendship, affection,
>trust - these are the things that, long before people signed contracts, long
>before they wrote down laws, held human society together."

RM: Oh really! What a bunch of emotional crap! Have you ever had kids?  In
sweden they have a wonder saying called "syskon k=E4rlek" (Brother and sister
love) which expresses the charming periods in their relationships of trying
to kill one another!

Bill: I was not talking about children but about how primitive societies
probably operated. It seems to be YOU and NOT ME that feels that human
nature is all tooth and claw. Sure children will fight it out. Strategies of
self interest develop as well as the evolution of various sensibilities like
sympathy and sense of fair play. I don't think these things are "Learned"
like arithmetic. I think they are part of our genetic inheritance and they
help drive behavior. Where does your sense of injustice come from?

>
>Some will argue that the termination of slavery was the result of an
>enlightened culture, enlightened through ideas and reason. Well maybe. But
>not enough credit has been given to good old "human nature". Once the slave
>was recognized as Human, the sensations of trust, sympathy, empathy, etc.
>could seep in. In any way, the "enemy" must be dehumanized. How long did it
>take for women to get the vote. Wasn't the rationalization given that they
>were somehow less than=85?

RM: This is a complete falsification of history and a big dose of the do
gooder.
Maybe good for lining up the local patriotic militia back in those days. But
the abolition of slavery was determined hardly by peoples good will. But the
victory of modern capitalist productions norms over the "cottin pickin"
slaves. The cotton picking machine and the union army replaced the fuedal
plantation and slave economy..

bill: There was considerable pressure to end slavery before the cotton gin.
I'm not saying economics didn't play a role, it certainly did,  but one
thing is certain - slavery would NEVER end without FIRST admitting that the
slave WAS a human being. And I don't mean as an intellectual exercise, but
"from the gut". Eventually we might regard the eating of cows as "morally"
wrong. This would come about only after a change in the way we regard other
animals, not necessarily dictated by market price.


>
>I maintain human nature is US. If permitted to express itself it will do
>just fine. Suppress or mold it into some socially "beneficial" conception,
>and we are going to get in big trouble. Arguments about whether dislodging a
>petri dish from a lab top containing a cloned or "natural" potential fetus
>should be manslaughter are intellectual exercises. We start with feelings.
>If it can be shown, for example, that at a certain stage of development a
>fetus suffers, that will kick in my "human nature" and I will modify my
>thinking. (So far I know of no one who can describe the experience. I can't
>remember anything prior to one year old).


RM: Sure and pigs fly! Then why do Hitlers in varying degrees turn up in
history? And according to some, the good human natured masses become the
"willing" executioners. I believe this is the reactionary Goldhagen crowd
that argue this kind of stuff. And which I oppose on principle.But the point
is that "human nature" in all the terms described in this letter
subordinated to who rules and makes the rules of a given society..
>
You COMPLETELY fail to get my point! My point is that the RULING CLASS
DELIBERATELY DISTORTS HUMAN NATURE. We are inundated with the libertarian
laissez-faire ethic throughout our society at present. Why? Because it
serves the interests of the ruling class. It is a distortion of the complete
human being. I consider it a criminal attack on the completeness of being
human. I think the revolutionary position would be the reclamation of  human
nature.



>In the meantime I would place my confidence and trust in any woman who can
>do the same with regard to carrying a baby.

RM: That is fine Bill! However would you do the same for a woman who decides
not  to carry a baby? Because that is the real point of this whole discussion
when all the moral garbage is put aside..

bill: Obviously you have not understood my post. The answer is of course Yes
but you shouldn't have had to ask!

Thanks for responding however, no one else seems interested.

bill



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005