> Philp Pilkington wrote:
>
>> "and even if interpreted
>> that way is STILL not an ethical principle but a practice dictated by
>> the development of a communist society, a social not an ethical
>> principle, and actually a practice rather than a principle."
>>
>> That seems like linguistic sophistry to me. Social/ethical;
>> practice/principle, these are plays on words. Ethics is always related to
>> the rest of society, its always dialectically grounded in the social link,
>> even when it appears otherwise. As for practice and principle it seems the
>> same thing, principles never meant anything unless they were practiced...
>>
>
> How about this: ethics is the social practice of justifying existing
> patterns of behavior in a society. (Ethical principles do not "drive"
> individual behavior and social relations; just the opposite.)
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
As I said above, if you want to be strictly logical about this:
Well, I did say "from a strictly materialistic point of view" (i.e. ideas/"ideology" generated from a material base) as I thought that's what you were getting at. Actually, I don't think you can logically say which "way around" it works, it seems to me to be a dialectical relationship and thus beyond the realm of strict cause and effect.