For what we see as a “lesser” achieving man in ambition we deem them to be obsolete due to the mechanical sequence of current market society and what we see as the model citizen is a sort of fanciful mythological perfectibility of man.
But from what form of standardization and absolute universal measurement do we use in order to come to some “consensus” or collective judgement of whole individuals being obsolete in comparison to a perfectibility of man? The measurement is collective morality.
We see one individual as the embodiement of what is pure compared to another as the lesser impure through moral eyes.
In the end the oldy saying is accurate:
“All suffering in the world comes from moral judgements.”
Moreover, the inherent inclination of a human is to hierarchically order/categorise as a matter of “like/not like” in socially motivated snap judgment context.
In relations of individuals socially, our first act of discrimination regards appearance. Dependent upon whether or not that is viewed in a positive or negative context, the next level is inquiry to assess overall trait likeness/dissimilarity. Here is usually where it would appear that class distinctions would set in.
Unless there was a direct provocative instance being observed that forced a moral judgment, (a criminal or socially subversive/unacceptable act), that would likely be a latter consequence.
apparently it’s determined by control of means of production and labour capital relations but i’ve only recently started reading up on political economy so i can’t be considered an expert on the subject to tell you more than you probably already know
In a amoral world I could go up to someone and tell them that they could stick their dislikes you know where in destroying them to gain my freedom. Where there is morality rebellion becomes treason.
I am basically saying that moral ideologies hold class distinctions in place.
Without morality there could be no stable class distinction in place.
I’m not sure what you have against morality. Concepts of right and wrong are not to blame. Your belief that nothing is right or wrong would not eliminate classism. It would simply teach that no action is right or wrong.
Classism simply comes from recognizing that there is a difference, and deciding you don’t like it. Not based on it’s morality, but based on a random set of characteristics that you like or dislike.
Eliminating morality would not change classism. Classism today may arrise from issues of morality or lack there of, but eliminating morality is not the answer to the problem.
Eliminating morality would change everything as we know it. Most of the world would not be prepared for the ensuing chaos (under the assumption that death of morality happens quickly rather than slowly)…
Actually, no it isn’t. It is forced through by genetic likeness/dissimilarity first. It is an instinctual impulse to discriminate, of the first order.
There are too many forms of discrimination used by the mind for this to be shown as the prime mover.
Genetic likeness/dissimilarity and sexual discriminations are first a bodily reaction, then later an executive function.
Then there is the entirety of the social distinctions, which are not necessarily morals based; economics, education, living area, political affliations, etc.
No. Alot of suffering comes from moral judgements. There’s plenty that come from falling on your head; or getting kicked in the balls; or having your right knee blown out by your dogs running into it (happened to me ), etc.
And by suffering (as in these types of examples), I mean the psychological effects of a magnified pain experience or the effects of a lingering pain (of varying intensity and duration).
Moral fundamentalism is a part of the Will to Power, especially in the case of strong, absolute or potent value systems, which are similar to strong desires, strong instincts, and strength-in-general.
Suffering is natural. It is always going to be here.
Only the weak can’t understand this and in doing so they try to impose their ideologies in removing all the world’s suffering by ironically creating new situations of suffering.
No. Morality is the delusion that all human suffering and destruction is a problem that needs to be swepted or locked away from the presence of all people.
Morality fails at seeing how the destructive elements of men and life is just as much apart of the universe as anything else.
I think I finally have a way to describe where I am going with this:
Economists are more like theologians than scientists.
The role of economists is to serve as the priesthood of a modern secular religion of economic progress that serves many of the same functions in contemporary society as earlier religions have done before them.
The secular religion of economists is the ongoing promises of a “true” path to a future salvation.
Because this path follows along a route of economic progress, and because economists are the ones- or so it is believed by many people- with the technical understanding to show the way, it falls to the members of the economics profession to assume the traditional role of the priesthood.
In contemporary society social science has usurped the traditional position of theology.
It is now social science that tells us what kind of creatures we are and what we are about on this planet.
It is social science that provides us images of personal behavior and legitimations of the structure that governs or commands us all as religion did in the past.
Economics beyond politics is embedded with religion and mythological narratives.
What is economics beyond religious symbology?
Economics have their own divine commandments and golden rules.
Economics have their own ritualistic ceremonies and crusading faiths.
A key requirement for a market system to thrive on is a standardized set of values which collective superstition readily supplies.
[b]Economic progress is so important because progress is seen as the path to the attainment of a new heaven on earth to a secular salvation.
If the obssession of money is as many have believed the root of all the malign passions the end of scarcity and the arrival of an era of full material abundance can mean the end of most forms of misery in the world.[/b]
To the extent that any system of economic ideas offers an alternative vision of the “ultimate values”, or “ultimate reality,” that actually shapes the workings of history economics is offering yet another grand prophesy in the religious tradition.
[b]In the religious economic gospels, the existence of evil behavior under dualism in the world has reflected the severity of the competition for physical survival of the past. People often lied and cheated, murdered, and stolen, were filled with hatreds and prejudices because they were driven to this condition by the material pressures of their existence.
The state of material deprivation is the original sin of economic theology under economical observation.
What then is believed by economists is that if sin results from destructive forces brought into existence by material scarcity, a world without scarcity, a world without complete material abundance, will be a world without sin.
Money, capital and commodities then form fetishisms in this religious market affair all the while progressivists assume through faith that there exists a one true “natural science” of society whose knowledge would provide the technical basis for governing.[/b]
[b]Economists declare themselves the keepers of the community’s material welfare.
All men are taught to be good workers as to do so makes oneself a holy religionist through faith in the religous spectacle of the economical market machine.
Idle fingers are the sign of the devil but working hands keeps the wild untamed emotions that are uncontrollable at bay like a curious religious spectacle in ritualized form.
Final distribution of income is used side by side in that which is religious morality along with the ideal distribution according to moral precepts. Very Important! Important to our current conversation on classism.[/b]
Greed and avarice preceed everything you have mentioned.
The desire for material wealth is moved in the first instance to capture a mate, to procreate and to have the resources to sustain that progeny, (immortality).
), etc.