>There is no doubt that Aristotle's virtues were aristocratic (& manly
>to boot), and that is because Aristotle lived in the world in which
>freedom _& leisure_ were reserved for ruling-class men.
What evidence is there that aristocratic women had it so tough, btw?
>The development of capitalism, however, has already created the level of
>productive forces that can make freedom & leisure available to
>_everyone_ in the world, _if_ we get around to abolishing the
>capitalist relations of production.
Which might well require the ethics of solidarity. Y'know, stuff like taking great personal risks, not dobbing in your mates, adhering to the whatever decisions (you hopefully had a part in determining) ... and you'd need a sense of a better world, too. One unlike anything that's ever been, but something you'd agree on some criterion or other is a lot better for the world's people than anything that's ever been.
>I cannot agree more. The very same capitalism that has developed the
>forces of production so much that freedom & free time are objective
>possibilities for everyone also menaces all with its pollution &
>toxic waste. If we don't abolish capitalism soon, we may inherit the
>earth so drained of clean water, etc. that we can get neither
>socialism nor anarchism going! :-(
Well, in the short to medium term, it menaces some more than others, I suppose, so it might or might not matter, depending on your point of view.
Or your moral universe, and where humanity resides in same.
What exactly is wrong with these admittedly simple thoughtlets? What exactly is it that's so bloody compelling about amoralism? Why's it matter so much to you guys?
Cheers, Rob.