> SA wrote:
>>
>> Or more specifically - why not be for fascism or apartheid, Miles?
>> You're not, but why not? Can you provide any reasons at all?
> This question illustrates my point: it is common sense in our society
> for call on people to justify their actions/positions by appealing to
> moral/ethical principles. The question--and any responsive
> answer--reinforces the capitalist ideology that social formations
> (e.g., fascism) are the result of the psychological characteristics of
> the individuals involved.
Ha. So you've boxed yourself into a position where you have to refuse even to say why you believe what you believe? And you think this flows from some sound philosophical basis? Doug was right, this whole pose is forced and weird.
And there's a reason for that: I'm sorry Miles, but it's abundantly clear that you're against exploitation for exactly the same reason the bourgeois sentimentalist cringes at the tortured puppy. It outrages your moral sense. Yet you've worked up an elaborate philosophical structure that requires you to deny it. Sure, in principle, people *should* question their own moral impulses, especially given the potential influence of power structures. But in the end one has to come up with reasons for whatever conclusions one's arrived at.
Instead, you've twisted yourself into the position of being able to offer absolutely no basis for believing anything. Yet at the same time you refuse to accept the logical consequences of that position, which would be to choose to believe nothing. I don't know if you realize how ridiculous this looks to a civilian: You're filled with convictions about what should be done and what shouldn't be done, you would urge people to make great, heroic efforts to change society, yet you are literally unable to offer a single reason why those things should be done or why people should make those efforts. _This is unreason distilled._ In the most literal sense. It renders pointless very idea of a discussion about politics, except about the most narrowly instrumental questions: If you refuse on principle to provide a reason for the assertions you make, why should anyone want to discuss them?
You write:
> I think it's much more enlightening to ask, as Nietzsche did: How does
> moral discourse reinforce power relations?
Well, in another post, you bring up the civil rights movement. Okay, then - answer your own question: How did the civil rights movement's moral discourse reinforce power relations?
SA