Carrol writes:
>what is wrong with Singer or Rob or other anti-communist moralists
Constructive stuff, Carrol. Ta.
>is not that they support this moral decision rather than that, but that
>they are moralists.
Well, that's not really my fault. I am, you see, rather taken with the writings of the well-known anti-communist moralist Karl Marx.
Seems to me he derives a concept of essence from Aristotle and then goes to some lengths to integrate it with something an awful lot like Kant's categorical imperative. This helps him come to the conclusion that our relations with each other (relationships being essential because the human essence is social) are controlled, systemically and externally (the system of exchange). Hence we live alienated lives: ever labouring but never realising our essence; ever moralising but never rationalising oue morality to our essence; our relations unconsciously left to the regulation of the commodity rather than consciously expressed by the livers of those relations.
How does Marx discuss all this? By invoking morality (especially Kant's imperative). The moral problem under capitalism is that virtues are no longer ends in themselves, but means to achieve ends dictated by the controlling relation that is exchange. This is compelling stuff - it goes to everything we do - from the rather moot (tendentious, I often think) notion of 'professional ethics' to each real live deliberating pregnant woman.
How does Marx argue against Smith's 'hidden hand'? Morally, that's how. Our actions must reflect our rational knowledge of what is the good. Even if the 'hidden hand' thesis turned out to be materially vindicated (which we would agree it is not), it would still not be a moral mode of human relations, as the conscious component is absent. Conscious intent is a premise of morality, as is in every case a rational consideration of the good.
It's all in 'Comments on Mill's Elements of Political Economy', and there's a goodly chunk of 'anti-communist' moralising to be found in *Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law*, too. Kain's *Marx and Ethics* is right onto this and much much more (Marx did an awful lot of moralising, it seems).
As we live under alienation, so must we abort under it. It doesn't follow that abortion is right or wrong. But it does follow that morality and abortion can not so easily be wrenched apart as you might wish.
>Moralism is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, obstacles to
>social decency.
Not if you test it as Marx tested it: are we talking exchange-contingent means or essence-expressing ends? I'm not saying I'm up to this (especially concerning the issue at hand), but I do say it's how we should try to think about our problems.
Cheers, Rob.