> Philp Pilkington wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
> It's not a logical question; it's an empirical one. There is a veritable
> mountain of social psychological data that supports the claim that changes
> in social conditions and social behavior cause changes in attitudes.
> Philosophers can engage in strictly logical arguments and ponder
> dialectical relationships about this if they wish, but that won't change the
> data.
>
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Again even if you call upon data it always comes back to a logical question. Its the chicken and the egg all over again. You claim that "changes in social conditions and social behavior cause changes in attitudes". So, first off - and because we're debating Marxism/politics here, we'll leave aside "acts of God" - what changes "social conditions"? Is it not usually people? You said above that "changes in social behavior changes attitudes" but are not social behavior and attitudes inherently linked?
The debate has been raging between Marxists and Weberians for years. Was it the "Protestant Ethic" which gave rise to capitalism or vice versa? Any time you look at these debates it always comes down to one thing: self-assertive dogma or insisting relentlessly on a unilateral perspective, which is the same thing. I put foward the idea that both are right and that social relations/attitudes/sociology/social-psychology/economic behavior/any-of-the-other-humanities cannot be approached in a strictly causal manner, they must be approached dialectically.
Logic precedes empirical data, because it organises that data. There's no getting around this, ever, and it can have extremely large consequences for how "facts" are represented and put forward...