Moral authority pissing contests?

[workerscommunes]

Well I would never consider myself as having any 'moral authority', I can be a complete bastard sometimes and I'm very conciouss of the fact. I don't even know what that means - is there even such thing as a universal objective morality like Kant et al seemed to think? I don't like the idea of there being one correct moral standard dictated by a one group over another, that's a very slippery slope. But then again as anti-authoritarians we are clearly trying to do just that with certain types of people so I'm not sure. Sorry that wasn't really an attempt to answer any queation of yours, just feeling my way around the subject matter.

I think in the capitalist north everyone with at least some awareness about how the world works (from liberals to anarchists) harbours a kind of guilt about what they know has been neccessary for the upkeep of their lifestyles. Going on the odd protest etc. is a way of showing to the world that you are intelligent enough to recognise the situation and voice one's dissaproval of the system without actually threatening their own position within said system. Sorry if this sounds unfairly cynical, I'm sure a lot of people on those marches truly care about their causes but for many I think it's a way of saying "I'm not a sucker" or "you're evil and I'm not". It's a superficial way of distancing oneself from an unjust system which we as consumers/producers are inescapably linked to.

Not that I don't find myself doing this at times, but I try not to be hypocritical. I know I'm incredibly flawed and therefore do not claim to have any moral authority.

[workerscommunes]

1000th post! ;D

[vequalsv0plusat]

Workers said:

I don't even know what that means - is there even such thing as a universal objective morality like Kant et al seemed to think?

It depends on the way in which "morality" is defined.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Michelaccio said:

Can "moral authority" ever really be the basis for a legitimate anti-authoritarian movement?

Those against authority generally have a reason for being against authority; i.e., are against authority in order to further some end (e.g. freedom). This end must be furthered in order to further some other end, which must be furthered in order to further some other end, and as one end leads to another, eventually you'd get led to something that's in fact an end in itself for that particular person. As I define morality as that which ought be furthered as an end in itself, it then follows that (at least according to my definition) all anti-authoritarian movements must be based on morality.

[vequalsv0plusat]

Michelaccio said:

I have to admit that I cringed when I read that sentence, even though I think that I know what you mean.

Because when you starting talking about founding a movement based on morality, it's awfully hard to do that without coming up with definitions of morality that are supposedly "objective" for all, and that hardly seems anti-authoritarian. I'm not sure how to make the leap from that to the end in itself for a particular person.

If you'd like to go that far back with it, then yes, an anti-authoritarian movement can't be based on morality for the reason you cite. But if not morality, what can it be based on? If definitions are authoritarian, then the basis of an anti-authoritarian movement cannot be defined and hence doesn't exist, as existence is identity, and such a basis would lack identity.

What do you mean by your last sentence, though? I don't quite see what you're saying.

Aristotle thought that happiness or contentment was the end of all actions, for example. He would say that it is more basic than your example of freedom, for instance, because the reason that we want to be free is that being free makes us happy (or at least we think that it will). But how do we begin defining what makes all people happy? If we accept that misery is subjective, isn't there a danger that an abstract political movement will reify and objectify what it means to be happy and therefore also what it means to be miserable, as a social category, and miss the mark? I've raised this question before in another way, on the Something Boring thread, when the subject of misery came up. It's a prickly question, I know. But an important one.

Are you referring to happiness specifically or happiness as an example of something more general?

[workerscommunes]

Michelaccio said:

Aristotle thought that happiness or contentment was the end of all actions, for example. He would say that it is more basic than your example of freedom, for instance, because the reason that we want to be free is that being free makes us happy (or at least we think that it will).

Aristotle had some rather funny ideas about freedom didn't he? Like it was possible to be a slave and 'free' if that was what one was best suited for or something like that.

[workerscommunes]

Oh yeah he's definately worth reading but as you say it can be quite painful at times...

Say, this thread's getting quite philosophical, we've already name-checked Kant, Aristotle and Nietzche. I may as well get the rest out of the way...

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy begger
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume,
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey everyday.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René DesCartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed." ;D

[workerscommunes]

No sadly I'm not familar with that one. They never repeat Monty Python in the England for some reason so I'm only familiar with them through 'best of' videos which leave out loads of good sketches.

I'm rather fond of their rhyming "Rene DesCartes" with "drunken fart" I have to say.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Demoralizing Moralism: The Futility of Fetishized Values

anarchymag.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1

[Anarchic Tribes]

Michelaccio

Does participating in a rally give one "moral authority," whatever that is? Or is it just possible that some people participate in rallies, at least in part, in order to make themselves feel morally superior?

To your first question I'd say no. To the next I'd say does it it really matter?

I wonder, when they leave their rallies, do they drive gas-guzzling cars, drink Coca-Cola, buy securities, vote Democrat, etc.?

Should they not protest against war then?

My point is rather that moral authority often becomes dubious the longer one looks at it.

Could have just been crap wording on the poster's part?
(Just being generally optimistic)

Can "moral authority" ever really be the basis for a legitimate anti-authoritarian movement? Are the squabbles we sometimes see between different strains of anarchists really often "moral authority" pissing contests in disguise?

No to the first. Not sure to the next (probably largely due to the fact that I don't understand "moral authority".)

How exactly would an "anti-authoritarian" movement objectively define itself, I wonder, and remain anti-authoritarian? I admit that I don't know. I'd be interested to hear if anyone here does.

What's the question? Could it be answered in part by the end of the above posted article under 'living without morality'?

And then in a strange way, I think that people might actually want to confirm their powerlessness, because then they can say, "See, it's not my fault. I stood out in the cold on MLK Day. I wrote my Senator. I took a friend to see F 9/11. I voted for candidate Y, but candidate X won," etc.

I totally agree that's how it seems, but why would people want that? Don't most activists protest actions that they want to stop, and feeling powerless at the lack of desired response is just a side-effect?

[Anarchic Tribes]

Well, this MLK Day protest was really just a larger than usual gig from the same people who protest every Sunday in the high-end shopping district in Kansas City. I've seen them—they make sure not to block the sidewalks for the rich kids buying Italian designer brands, or cause traffic problems for the SUVs. It seems that they're more concerned with not offending anyone or making a nuisance of themselves than anything.

Hmm. We recently went to a protest in our local town. Well actually we didn't because we were late. I thought it was at 1pm but it was at 12. when we arrived at 1 there was no sign of anyone of anything having been protesting. I kind of felt like I was glad I missed it then if that was how it was going to be. Seriously not one person was left, not one poster posted or a leaflet in the bin even. 1 hour later.

They bend over backwards to play into the garbage rhetoric of the warmongers, carrying plenty of US flags and signs that say shit like "Peace is patriotic," as if patriotism is somehow a valid concern in the debate. They also make sure to tell television cameras that they "support the troops," whatever that means, playing right into the hands of administration propagandists.

Ok I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is might they be trying to make a point to people that would otherwise call them unpatriotic as a means to shut them up? (I'm not sure on this one as I was under the impression that in this country 'patriotic' meant rascist, so it's not really a word used by people other than the bnp or ukip etc)
Secondly it's quite impressive that they tell the television cameras anything. Over here there are many protests happening constantly but no-one ever hears about them. As far as I know there's pretty much a blanket ban on any media coverage of protests. Either that or the people organising them are just stupid?

I guess what I am trying to say is that at least in this part of America, the climate of "protest" is so fucking timid and mealy-mouthed that it really is more counterproductive than anything (and I do mean the accepted form of protest, not protest in general, of course).

Yes that's the impression I've got from the protests I've been to. I wondered if it was because they're more worried about losing their easy life than because they were scared of repercussions or whatever. I mean it's ok to stand up and politely say 'Hey I don't like what you're doing', but if they started shouting Bollox at the whole bloody show? People don't want the bigger picture to change do they? They have an easy life, why make it harder? They might not like the idea of thousands of people getting murdered and tortured, babies getting blown to pieces, schools and hospitals being destroyed etc. but honestly, it doesn't really matter does it.

By buying into the administration's logic linking this slaughter to patriotism and accepting that "supporting the troops" is some kind of essential ingredient to a moral position against what those very troops are doing, these people are basically engaging in nothing more than political masturbation. In terms of what McQuinn lays out in his article, this might count as an example of the submitting to the fetishized values of compulsory morality.

So I do think that it matters (in finally answering your first question) to point this out, because these people may actually be contributing to the problem they claim to be fighting.

Well yes I can see that. Why would they say that they support the troops but not the war? I mean there would be no war without the troops eh. The politicians might be sending the troops out there, but they're certainly not planning on going and doing the job themselves.

In answer to the question of whether they should protest the war, the answer is yes, of course they should

Good. Get out there and show them how it should be done eh

Seriously though, I'm all for people standing up for their convictions, of course. I'm just not sure that these people are. First, they're engaged in a tactic they know to be fruitless, but they've done little or nothing to change it. They're comfortable with a tactic that has proved to be a failure. I don't remember who said it, but I once read a definition of insanity as being the repetition of the same process into infinity in the hopes that somehow the results will eventually change.

I see what you mean but I'm not sure that I agree with the last bit in this case.
A year ago I went to a protest in London. Only 25,000 turned up compared to the 1million near, the year before. The only speakers that I felt spoke real words were the schoolkids that stood up. They spoke of how bad it was when so many people came and protested against invading Iraq only to be told the next day by Blair that he doesn't mind them protesting and he's going to war anyway. Then they pointed out how the worst way to respond to that was by accepting it and by not bothering to protest again. I agree. Everyone could've just gone back the next day, the next week, month year. But no, 2.5% of those people turned up the next year. Surely it only makes you feel powerless if you accept it that way. I bet those hundreds of thousands of people didn't feel powerless when they were out there politely protesting. So the next day our government stood up and told them they were powerless, I bet he was hoping they would believe it too. And they did, but that was their choice. Fact of the matter is that they are not powerless unless they believe that they are. Why would they believe such a thing from a man whose lies they are out there protesting against??? Because it suits them to?

In this respect, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to accept the premise of your last question, that the feeling of powerlessness is a side-effect. Two years into the use of a failed tactic, some of them are now (or perhaps still) speaking of "moral authority," and their powerlessness is almost a pre-requisite to that claim.

Hmm, seems pretty stupid I guess. At least they are out there still protesting? But yes I do see what you mean.

Why would they want to confirm their powerlessness? Because doing so also makes them feel guiltless. And while I understand that desire, I don't like it one bit, because so long as people are intent on using their marginalization as a moral escape clause, they aren't likely to do anything that really threatens the system—which is exactly what the people in charge want.

Well yeh, but it's a bit pessimistic don't you think? Do you just accept that? Well obviously not that's why you're bringing it up. So what's to be done then?

I'm not sure but I'm going to protest tomorrow. I'm going to SHOUT Bollox! and I encourage you all to do the same.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Yeah people can be crap. But pessimism is part of feeling powerless. That's a choice. Each and everyone of us has enough power. If we choose to deny that power then we only give it to someone else.
That's the reason why I'm an optimist, and whilst I'm loathed to quote churchill "It does not seem too much use being anything else." It's got something to do with energy ya know

[Anarchic Tribes]

On the subject of the media coverage, here's part of of post at IMC talkin about some pictures put up by the bbc:

This last one is a bit odd, because it opens with a picture of a woman in a t-shirt saying "bring the troops home", but the quote alongside it says "If the soldiers left now then that would make things worse in Iraq. It would be complete anarchy. I’m here to show solidarity, and to make them think twice about invading Iran. The government’s got such a large majority they feel they can do anything. This is the only way we can show dissent."

www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/03/307199.html

[vequalsv0plusat]

Michelaccio said:

Thanks for your answer.

Well, as you may know, I have a running argument with movements of all sorts, so you might say that questioning the basis for the political movement is somewhat the point of my argument.

I'm not against defining things per se, because we have to make choices in our lives and definitions can be useful for those, but I do have a problem with people defining things for each other on the basis of "moral authority," whether it is a government, a church, a corporate "sponsor" or an "anti-authoritarian" movement. How exactly would an "anti-authoritarian" movement objectively define itself, I wonder, and remain anti-authoritarian? I admit that I don't know. I'd be interested to hear if anyone here does.

As for the sentence that you asked me to explain, what I was getting at was that in your original post, you were talking about the fact that those against authority have their reasons for being against authority, which you referred to as their own personal ends. I'm asking how to make the leap to those somewhat subjective personal ends from an objectively defined "moral authority."

Then I apologize for my complete misunderstanding of your original post.

I suppose one way to do it is by treating moral authority as that which is necessary to further that which is an end in itself, regardless of what it is. For instance, freedom could be related to moral authority, as humans cannot further ends without having the freedom to do so.

Could you explain more what you mean by "existence is identity," and how that relates to definition?

Leonard Peikoff can better explain the "existence is identity" part than I can:

"The point is that to be is to be something. Existence and identity are indivisble; either implies the other. If something exists, then something exists; and if there is a something, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be broken in two."

Anything which exists as a something can be defined, namely as that something. Therefore, anything that's undefinable cannot be something and therefore cannot exist (because existence is identity).

[Anarchic Tribes]

VIGIL

I stand with a sign
For an hour each week
It makes me feel good
I deserve to feel good
I am a good person
Sometimes

After I am done
I go to the library
I take home all the right books
It makes me feel good
It eases my stress

I am a moral witness
I will not tell you
What I think or feel
Except that I feel good
Sometimes

I am not responsible
It is not me
It is them
Please don't touch me
It causes me stress

I will not listen to you
I will not talk to you
I have seen the dead
I have my sign

I am a moral witness
Silence makes me feel good
Silence is my weapon
Sometimes

www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/03/307408.html