<html><body> JG: There's something that we might call existential progress. Are we happy/equal/just etc? Bklyn: How did "just" jump from the moral to existential category of progress? JG: The distinction that I would make is between: 1) An over-arching concept of morality that can be universalised – either by reference to a deontological source (God, tradition, authority), or to some form of common interest (rule-based utilitarianism, for example). And, 2) Things that make people feel good. You are right, my inclusion of justice required explanation as it fits in both categories. What I meant by putting it under existential was the sense of people feeling that their society is just, rather than its actually being just. When people’s happiness is elevated as the highest virtue, the feeling that things are just acquires greater value than their actually being just (however defined). ---- JG: Material progress is not up for discussion. BM: Why not? Becuse uyou say it isn't or because all material progress is good? And if it all material progress is good, why is it so? JG: No, because material progress has happened – we clearly do make more stuff. I happen to think that that is good, but that’s another question. ---- JG: Moral progress is something reactionaries worry about. BM: Again, why? Don't progressives have a stake in the moral development of society, in shaping/influencing the discourses/rhetoric around moral issues? JG: No one would be progressive if they didn’t have a sense of righteous indignation about how things are. And of course we should intervene in ‘moral’ debates. But that’s not the same as worrying about moral progress. What does moral progress look like, how do you measure it and how do you promote it? What does the ‘moral development of society’ look like? Reactionaries like to talk like this because it implies that the problems of society are due to immoral people. So-called ‘moral issues’ should be considered in the light not of abstract moral criteria, but of questions of power and political strategy. The dangers of a moralistic approach can be seen in Christopher ‘the scoundrel’ Hitchens. He elevated moral concerns above politics. His condemnation of immoral terrorists should be countered not by saying that they are good, or that there is a higher morality. I would counter by saying that when patsies like Hitchens worry about immoral terrorists, they are supporting the most powerful and barbarous states in the world. Turning it around and saying that it’s a different morality is a rhetorical strategy, but I think it’s more effective to distinguish political arguments for progress – however defined – from moralism. --James   James Greenstein --- "Dennis Perrin" <dperrin@comcast.net> wrote: > Actually, anyone who grew up in this kind of immigrant community -- Irish, > Italian, Jewish, Greek, etc. -- is likely to consider it a very realistic > portrayal of the striving first- and second-generation types who peopled it. > I can recognize at least some of my old relatives and friends among the > finely-drawn secondary players who form the backdrop in the series. Each of > these communities had their crime bosses and petty racketeers whose > newly-acquired status and comfort were widely admired by the greater number > of their more cautious and law-abiding compatriots. It's a sociological > commonplace, and you'll find the same range of characters in today's black, > hispanic, and Asian ghettoes . . . > There are and have been many other TV and film vehicles which are > simply about "gangsterism, pain, misery, death and moral corruption", which > treat the subject in a way that is far removed from the experience of > everyday life. > > Marv Gandall I'll grant you all the above Marv. Like I said, "The Sopranos" is first-rate drama (comedy too, as Carl noted), and yes, it explores the sociological elements and generational struggles of immigrant communities. I was dealing strictly with whether or not the show "celebrates" extortion, murder, etc., and that apart from its artistic triumphs, I wouldn't want to hang with Tony S. and his pals. DP ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </body></html>