Quote:
Originally Posted by skalf
Sure Stalin represented Stalinism, in the sense that everyone is true to their own character; there really is no way not to be.
But that misses the point; none of what Stalin, Mao or pol Pot did represented true communism, which is very easy to see if you read what the belief system actually entails.
My argument is that their behavior is a predictable result of trying to base a society on a flawed utopian belief system, but the philosophy of communism does not condone any of the abuses practiced by communist leaders.
You say communism is bad because of its moral principles, but it’s important to notice that the actual communist principles would create a wonderful society, if they worked in the real world; the problem is not what the communists are trying to achieve. The problem is that it cannot be achieved.
If communism is creating equality in wealth via force instead of via voluntarism, then that is immoral. No matter if the society will be perfect. There is a difference in 'logic of consequences' and the 'logic of appropriateness', meaning, there is a difference between morality and result. Choosing between force or voluntarism is a moral choice (logic of appropriateness), the society that is the result of the moral choice is a result, not a morality (logic of consequences).
I can not make a good judgment of Stalin, I know he killed many people. I don't know what are the limits of 'true communism'. If it is okay to steal money from rich people to give it to the poor, that is a moral choice, which I do not approve. But 'true communism' condones stealing of the rich. I don't know if it condones killing the rich. If leaders that call themselves communists, yet there is nothing inherent in communism that says something about killing to reach the communist goal, we don't know if killing is communist or anti-communist.
There is no problem in wanting an utopia to exist. It becomes a problem if you want to reach your goal via immoral ways.
Quote:
If the non killing bit is the only thing the belief system says then no, but that would not be much an of an ideology.
A real world ideology will usually contain contradictory elements, or just elements that cannot work in the real world, because they conflict with human nature.
Seeing what the results are, of people trying their best to implement the ideology is in my opinion the best way to evaluate a belief system.
Every ideology wants to create a better world, it’s the details of how they want to do it that are important.
How do you know if something can not work in the real world. Tell me, what do Christians have to do which is impossible? The desire to create an utopia is not wrong.
So you would still evaluate the belief system of 2p2ism based on the people that try to get the 2p2-society. Let's make our 2p2ism bigger.
- 2p2ism says killing is never allowed. (morality)
- 2p2ism says we want everyone to have the same amount of wealth (result)
And then there are people that claim to be 2p2ists and kill people trying to reach the result in spite of the inherent morality of 2p2ism. What is to blame? The ideology of 2p2ism, or the 2p2ists? What is true 2p2ism? Our pact? Or the people?
Quote:
Christianity is a utopian belief system, and as such contains many things that contradict human nature; making it very hard to live up to it.
The important point here is that if you say that only the text that Christianity is built on matters, and the behavior of the followers can be discounted, then you must extent that same courtesy to followers of other belief systems.
There is no problem in wanting an utopia to exist. Yes it is very difficult not to sin, and to be a perfect man. Should thus Christianity lower it's morality and say: ok you can have gay relationships if you're tempted; ok you can kill if somebody does something you do not like etc. etc.?
The behaviour of the followers should be analysed according to the basis of Christianity. I'm not saying discounted. I'm saying if a Christian does something which is not in accordance with True Christianity (you maybe don't know if there is a True Christianity, but I necessarily believe there is), then what is inherently Christian is not based on what people do, but what people should do.
I will give the same courtesy to followers of other belief systems yes. That's why I judge the morality of the belief systems, not the people.