Submitted by hellofriendilu in Philosophy

I just wrote this thing as a reply in 101 and I like it a lot, but also I just free wrote it out over the span of a half an hour so I'm sure it's not great. I also only took one semester of ethics and otherwise have had only one other philosophy class, as in theories. I did take logic though so I think I have a sound argument? idk, the point is I wrote this and it's probably shit but I wonder if someone said this before in a way that wasn't shit. Maybe I'll email my ethics prof. She'd get a kick out of my fumbling.

I did a DDG but only found something called Brill's Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy which I can't find in a place that isn't paywalled (but haven't spent much time looking tbh because it's 612 pages) so I figured I'd ask for help.

Essentially my argument is that Anarchism can be understood as a synthesis of the three main normative ethical theories, teleology, deontology and virtue.

Anarchism is sort of an amalgamation of the three main normative ethical theories. In Anarchism the ends are created by the means, rather than in teleological theory where the means are justified by the ends, or in a deontological sense where only the means matter. Additionally, it is a virtue ethic, as anarchists understand that our individual liberty is determined by the liberty of the whole so behavior that is antithetical to liberty will necessarily be defended against.

So for an anarchist, the ends are important, the means are important and the virtue of liberty is important.

Understanding anarchy as a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems, and understanding that in anarchism the ends are created by the means, we conclude that to abolish oppressive systems we have to abolish oppressive systems. To be free we have to behave as though we are free. To stay free we behave in ways that respect the freedom of others.

tl;dr: None of us are free until all of us are free, and an injury to one is an injury to all.

Also obvi this doesn't apply to anarchists who do not agree with the foundation that there is such a thing as morality or ethics, so egoists and post-left folks (as far as I understand it, which is not much) just wouldn't agree with any of this.

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )

People who get taught analytic philosophy get taught only normative ethics, which imo is not compatible with anarchism.

Post-left critique rejects morality but not ethics, and the distinction is roughly between normative and non-normative ethics, including Stirner's critique of transcendent value frameworks forced upon people, and Nietzche's critique of resentment (see this post by u/Sails) and slave morality, towards a transvaluation of all values for a life-affirming ethic.

This extra bit may or may not be useful, but:
If you're familiar with analytic philosophy you might be familiar with how much of its dominant forms assumes/requires an epistemological/metaphysical ground - something like Descartean foundationalism or Kant's transcendental idealism. Deleuze for example shows how those aren't actually adequate grounds at all and builds a meta-critique that allows for groundlessness. If you're curious about it, you might get something out of reading section 1.5 on D&G in this text, which introduces that critique and expresses normative frameworks to be a 'State thought', and how that critique affects how we relate to subjecthood and rationality. Or you can skip to section 1.6 and 1.7 which says a bit about what non-normativity means in a Deleuzian framework.

There's also a cool chapter called Immanent Ethics and Forms of Representation by Elisabet Vasileva in Deleuze and Anarchism that relates with this question in an interesting way, but I'm not sure how much Deleuze you have to read before it's easy to grasp.

I'm happy to try speak more specifically if you give me something to work with, for now I've just introduced the alternative to normative ethics.

7

hellofriendilu OP wrote

If you're familiar with analytic philosophy you might be familiar with how much of its dominant forms assumes/requires an epistemological/metaphysical ground

Right this was the this that I was like hmmm about. I'm certainly not going to write an entirely new metaphysical framework. I will happily read all of that! Thank you so much.

I'm happy to try speak more specifically if you give me something to work with, for now I've just introduced the alternative to normative ethics.

Thank you so much. I don't know what my questions are yet but I'll certainly remember to ask when I have more specific questions. I do really love this shit so if there's anything else you'd suggest to a hobby ethics..ist?

6

Tequilx_Wolf wrote

If you like this stuff I'd consider reading the whole of the text I linked sections to, keeping an eye on the references. It'll holistically work to upgrade your ethics, metaphysics, anticolonial theory, and anarchism.

Here's the post where I introduce why I think it's cool.

Happy to give you specific recommendations if you give me something to chew on.

5

hellofriendilu OP wrote

I have like 6 hours on the road today so I'll have my phone read it to me while I'm driving. I will likely have questions in a few hours when I get to where I'm going and then again when I'm back home.

Thanks for geeking out with me like this. I'm really excited about this. I really love philosophy and I remember wishing that I knew how to look for ethics beyond normative and eastern, which I went over in class. I found a lot of the writing too dense to get through without a lot of explainers. (I spent a few weeks trying to read Nietzsche before giving up.)

5

Tequilx_Wolf wrote

I'm curious if you did and if it was manageable, ifever you feel up for talking about it.

3

hellofriendilu OP wrote

I ended up listening to spanish ska music the whole trip. But I did just convert it to a mobi and emailed it to my old ass kindle to read so we're getting there!

3

naocat wrote

Not OP but this is a great response. Reading discussion like this helps me feel more rounded.

6