MARCH,1946 79 MarxismandEthics byPhilipSprat MOS T professingMarxistsareeclectics.Theyaccept fromMarxismwhatseemstrueorpleasesthem, andfromothertheorieslikewise.That is,they treatMarxismasascientificdisciplineonalevelwith others,adisciplinewhichhasmadecontributionstoecon- omicsorsociology,buthasnowiderpretensions.This versionofMarxismmaybethemostdefensible,butit is nottheversionIwanttodiscuss,forobviouslyit iscompatiblewithanyethicalbelief. TheproblemoftherelationofethicstoMarxismarises onlywhenMarxismistreatedasaphilosophicalsystem. Thesameproblemariseswithanycomprehensivephilosophy,butispeculiarlyacuteinMarxismbecausethistheoryis ofauniquecharacter.Beingmaterialisticornaturalistic ithasnoethicsofitsownandtendstogivethesubject verylittleimportance,while,beinga"practical"philosophy,whosepurposeisnotmerelytounderstandtheworld buttochangeit, itmustsetforthethicalprinciplesand givethemgreatimportance. It isworthwhiletoexamine bothsidesofthisdilemma. TheclassicalEuropeanphilosophiesallattachedhigh importancetoethics. InPlatonismthekeystoneofthe systemofideasistheIdeaoftheGood. ( I amusingthe termethicsintheoldermannertoincludewhatisnow caledaxiology,thetheoryofvalues,aswellasthetheory ofthedistinctivelymoralvaluesandobligations).Platonismwasnotuniqueinthis.Indeedthesharpdiference wenowperceivebetweenethicsandothersubjects,between factandvalue,isandoughttobe,wasonlymadeacceptable byscienceandasapopularideaisnew.Sciencehastobe ethicallyneutral,thatisithastodealwiththefactsand ignoretheirdesirabilityorotherwise. I t isonlyinthis spiritthatit ispossibletogetusefulresultsinsuchsub- jectsasanthropologyandpsycho-analysis.Eventuallythis objectiveatitudecametoprevail,andit isnownormal todiscuss,forexample,thenatureoftheuniverseandthe evolutionoflifeandmind,withoutassumingorraisingthe questionwhetheritisagoodorbadthingthatallthishas happened. Itispossibletotreatethicsitselfinthespiritofethical neutrality.Onemayestablishthatcertainpeoplehave certainethicalbeliefs,andothers,others,andhowthiscame about,withoutraisingthequestionwhoisright.Thisisthe history,or-psychology,oranthropologyofethics.Orone maydiscussthelogicalstructureofthesubjectandthe meaningsofethicalterms,suchas"good"and"right" withoutcommitingoneselftostatementsofmorethana ceitainspecificityastowhatsortofactsarerightorthings good.. . . MaterialismandEthics Modernphilosophersaredividedroughlyintotwoschools theempiricist,naturalisticormaterialisticschool,andthe BibliotecaGinoBianco rationalist,system-building,normallyinsomesenseideal- isticschool.Theformerhasadoptedthescientificapproach,typicalywithitsethicalneutrality. I t treatsof specialsubjects,logic,epistemology,scientificmethod, ethics,all inseparationfromeachother,usualywithout commitingitselftomaterialism,butwiththenaturalistic backgroundnormalamongscientificmen.Itsethicstends tobe,thoughitneednotbe,ethicsasaphenomenonrather thannormativeethics.Thereisatleastamarkedlackof fervourorupliftinsuchauthorsasHume,Mill,Sidgwick, Moore,Broad,andevenRoss.Forthisschoolethicsisin anycaseaspecialdepartment,independentoftherestof philosophy. Nowthistreatmentofethicsaslogicalyindependentof therestofknowledgeisnaturalforanyempiricaly-mindedornaturalisticphilosophy,butformaterialismitismore thanmerelynatural, it isobligatory.Otherphilosophers merelytendtoassumethattheuniverseisethicallyindiffer- ent,butmaterialistsmustpostulatethis.Formaterialists materialobjectsinthemselvescanhavenovaluenorim- poseanyobligationuponminds;norcantheuniverse, which,apartfromthefinitemindsinit,isamaterialobject. Formaterialists,ethicsisapurelyhumancreation,notdeduciblea priori fromthenatureoftheuniverse,andthere- foretobeexaminedempiricalyandtreatedindependently likeanyotherdepartmentofknowledge. But,itisimportanttonotice,thereisnoincompatibility betweenmaterialismandethics.Materialismalowsofany ethicaltheorywhichdoesnotappealtoextra-naturalau- thority.Formaterialism,ethicsisasitappearsinour experience,andhasasmuchoraslittleauthorityaswefind ithas.Thecommonlyalegeddisharmonybetweenmaterialismandethicsisofadiferenttype:it issupposedthat beliefinmaterialismwillleadpeopletodisregardtheir obligations.Theymaybetrue,butit isapsychological efect,notalogicalimplication. Inshort,materialismmust treatethicsasauthorsoftheempiricaltraditionusualy havetreatedit,asapartoftheirsubjectofgreaterorless interestofitsownbuthavingsubstantialynologicalcon- nectionwiththerestoftheirsystem.Amaterialistwhet setsouttoexpoundaphilosophy,i.e.toexhibitthenature oftheuniverse,willtreatofethicsasananthropological, socialandpsychologicalphenomenon,andifheisofan academicturnofmindhemaydiscussthelogicalstructure ofethics:butifhesetsforthhisethicalbeliefs,i.e.states whatmenoughttodoandtovalue,itwillbefoundthat thesehavelittlelogicalconnectionwiththerestofhis system,arenotinanysenseanimplicationof it oran essentialpartof it,andmightverywellhavebeenother- wiseorhavebeenomited. Thesystem-buildersontheotherhandstillgiveethics thecentralplaceithasalwaystakenintheseambitious constructions.Theirmainaimindeedistoprovethatthe
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==