> I've said it before on the list, but I can't resist jumping in again.
> Moral reasoning rarely "guides" or "drives" behavior; rather, it
> primarily functions as post hoc justification (or condemnation) of
> actions already taken. Nietzsche is very good on this: morality is a
> product of power relations, and it is informative to trace the
> genealogy of certain moral systems (e.g., Christian "slave"
> morality). However, the moral system is always the product of the
> historical moment, not the cause. To explain a social movement or a
> social transformation by appealing to the moral beliefs of individuals
> is a fundamental category error that--not coincidentally!--is endemic
> to capitalist social relations (e.g., "people are poor because they
> don't have a good work ethic").
I hate this kind of argument. I always picture the advocate of this view watching a puppy being tortured and inwardly reproaching himself for his bourgeois sentimental feelings of outrage. Miles, you live under capitalist social relations, yet you don't believe people are poor because they don't have a good work ethic. How'd that happen? If you woke up under a fascist regime, would you support the Fuhrer because, after all, morality is merely a product of power relations? This argument makes no sense at all.
SA