File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9801, message 604


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:06:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: (Fwd) personhood & marx



Sheila seems tome to be on theright track. Marxism nowhere suggests taht
morality is a matter of being nice or acting from compassion. In fact Marx
himself officially dismisses morality as mere ideology, although
practically he doesn't stick with that and in fact he operates with a
notion of morality as based on freedom and self realization derived from
Hegel. We needn't agree with him on that. We also needn't take a positioon
on whether morals are made by us or are more objective than that, because
even if they are made by us that won't tell us whether we should make them
so as to include fetuses.

I don't think we should take the James-Sheila position that only beings
with social existence have rights, though. Autistic children and very
retarded persons may not have a social existence, but it surely would be
wrong to kill them just because they are a bother.

I do think a Marxist, or a sensible, approach to abortion proceeds from
politics to ethics. I think the nature of personhood is not evident from
the metaphysical arguments, and the indeterminacy has to be resolved by
appealing to wider considerations aboyt what promotes human liberation. I
think we mostly agree that abortion rights are necesasry for women's
liberation, so we should drwa the line of personhood to allow for such
rights. This is putting it crudely of course.

--jks

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Sheila Walters wrote:

> Forwarded message:
> From:     Self <TEAL/SWALTERS>
> To: marxism-thaxis-AT-jefferson.village.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: personhood & marx
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:28:35 EST
> 
> I'd really enjoy discussing all the tangents of this abortion issue,
> but the topic seems to have lost most of its relevance to Marxism.  
> And the thing is, my determination to understand Marxism and use
> it are the only reasons I subscribed to these lists.  So let me start
> a thread that isn't very likely to deviate from a Marxist focus.
> 
> Having said that, I think I should tell you that I'm relatively new 
> to the study of Marx  (few mos.) and it's a hit and miss effort  -
> self-education with no formal plan, makes it a slow road.  Plus, I'm 
> not accustomed to writing stuff (having spent most of my adult life 
> as an actress, a temp, and a waitress, I've had no time to learn 
> about much else)  - I'm not really afraid that I won't make myself 
> clear, but I do hope you'll limit your attacks on me to constructive 
> criiticism rather than style or ulterior motive.  I belong to no 
> party, have no personal agenda here to convert anyone to any beliefs, 
> and am open to re-examining my current opinions.
> 
> Now to the point.  It seems to me (I think I'm using some Marxist
> method here; correct me if I'm not...) that our concern w/regard
> to creating a morally valid definition of personhood is a matter of
> analyzing truely **tangible** existance of any human in question
> (i.e. a fetus) to real **society** (outside the womb).  And as I see
> it, the fetus doesn't substantially exist in society.  - I'm not 
> saying that the fetus doesn't exist at all  of course or that its
> existence is unimportant;  obviously fetuses exist and humanity
> would cease to exist without them.  But they're physically not
> involved in society.  We never hear a fetus laugh out loud, scream
> piercingly, cook meals for friends for friends or family, or even eat
> those cooked meals, it doesn't fight with siblings, gossip, or 
> what-have-you.  OK, you get the picture.  So my logic leads me
> to conclude that *morally* (that is if I use **Marxism** as my tool
> for creating a useful moral   - this one being a moral definition
> of personhood - ), a fetus holds no position worth considering.
> 
> So I ask you all, does Marxist theory suggest anywhere that our
> social morals should be based on what we agree to be "nice or
> not nice" or even sentimentally compassionate?  Or maybe on
> society's relationships to ideas (as opposed to external events
> and experiences)?  Everything that crowds our heads on this
> topic,  all that a fetus *symbolizes*, I think we should be very
> critical of.  These emotionally-packed thoughts are more likely
> than not to distract us from coming up with the best choices
> in developing Marxist positions.  Morals don't just exist like the
> trees do or the sun and the moon;  humans are the creators
> of morals.  I think most of us on this list want to develop strong
> Marxist societies   - and if we do want to, shouldn't we focus
> together on using Marxism to formulate useful positions for
> difficult questions?  Any suggestions?  Comments?
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005