Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 13:05:51 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <LROGERS-AT-deq.state.ut.us>
Subject:  "morals"


In reply to malecki

Lisa previously wrote:
>... any critters that
>habitually destroyed their own offspring wouldn't last long.  Making
>more offspring survive, as much as possible, that is the tendency of
>animal behavior, [probably as a result of natural selection.] 

Malecki: Is this why revolutionaries oppose forced birth control
(actually caste control) in India and would propose the right to free
abortion on demand and sex education. 

Lisa:  I don't know, I wouldn't say that.  I do think that what a lot
of us want is to have control over our own reproduction, so we can
each choose the number of children we have.  [Of course this would
enable each one to pursue one's fitness interests, whether they
thought of it that way or not.]  Some people also want to have
control over others, which I think is generally done to serve the
controllers' interests.

Lisa: >All social mammals spend most of their lives with a small
number of>others that they know very well. 

malecki: Well, partially true. But fragmentation of family relations
under imperialism certainly does not make this a universal law..

Lisa:  I do not speak or think in terms of "universal law".  I was
making a generalization, which I think is still generally true for
humans as well.  Actually, my formulation was a bit of tautology,
since "social" animals are by definition hanging out with each other
and often knowing each other as individuals, which was part of the
point I was trying to make, it's not only humans that do this.

Of course it's true that people less often live near many relatives
in societies where the means of obtaining food and shelter depends
mostly on a large scale labor market.  But the original statement I
was replying to was that only humans "make relationships".  Although
extended families live together less often, people and many other
species do get to know and spend time with non-relatives also.

Lisa: >Non-humans are well known for displays and contests that
rarely >involve injury.  Even if one is bound to win, to attempt to
kill>another may increase risk of injury to the winner, and once the
loser>knows hse is going to lose, it might as well back off, and
generally>does.

malecki: Is this based on individual species like lemmings? Or do
animals in flock faced with a forest fire or war act out of survival
of the fitess?

Lisa:  I don't know why you distinguish between "individual species"
and "flocks" or between forest fires and any other kind of situation.
 What living things generally appear to be doing is trying to
increase the numbers of copies of their own genes in future
generations, i.e. to serve their own darwinian fitness.

Lisa:>Humans invent "morality", just like the rest of ideology, in
the>context of material, infrastructural factors, and in the attempt
to>influence _other's_ behavior, for their _own_ benefit.

malecki: Don,t think i agree with the above. Morality amongst humans
is determined by the dominant ideology and institution of the
times..Or maybe you mean the same thing?

Lisa:  Probably meaning something similar.  But when I refer to
"humans" generally I am not limiting that to capitalist or class
societies.  In this broader view, it is not always or only "the
ruling class that makes the rules", because there may _be_ no ruling
class.  Whoever the rule-makers are in any sort of society, I expect
that they are trying to serve their own interests.  

Also, I would reply with a question - isn't morality part of
ideology?  Either way, what determines the "dominant ideology and
institution" ?  Ideology doesn't spring from nowhere or historical
accident or "great men" only, right?  What I called material and
infrastructural you might recognize by the phrase "economic base".  

Lisa


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