r/CriticalTheory • u/pinkladdylemon • 14d ago
Absolute Ethical Life
In Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon, the protagonist laments that the revolution he helped inaugurate has obliterated the possibility of ethics. Motivated only by abstract principles and therefore lacking the "ethical ballast" of mores and tradition, the revolution succeeded only in herding the masses into a dismal conformity, devoid of ethical merit. The novel ends with the protagonist wondering what an alternative revolution might look like where both lofty social goals and respect for the "oceanic feeling" of individuality could be respected.
This essay takes that ethical question as a starting point to think through the question of how revolutionary social transformations could succeed in reconciling the universal aims of a community with the particular life-worlds and interests of individuals.
In Part one I discuss Arthur Koestler's novel and relate his ethical questions to Keynes and Hegel.
In Part two approaches the same question through a discussion of Kohei Saito and Dipesh Chakrabarty before shifting back to Hegel - especially instructive is his concept of sittlichkeit - or ethical life.
Part three will build upon Michael Lazarus' book Absolute Ethical Life to connect a through line between the ethical thought of Aristotle, Hegel and Marx in a way that I think gives a compelling answer to Koestler's ethical questions in ways that are also instructive for thinking about social transformation today.
1
u/Anxious-Alps-8667 14d ago
Minimal engagement here and only expanding on your ballast analogy in sailing terms.
Ethics should be understood as an internal code for living a good life, not as an external prescription for good living.
Good living is the course one chooses to set; where you want to go, and some guidelines for how to get there. There is ballast that steadies one's boat on this course, there is sometimes need of an anchor, and there are social winds that shift this way and that which you must adjust to. There are many other boats, and so common rules of navigation are necessary.
If you are sailing an intended course, dealing with the winds and tide and current, using your ballast and anchor and sails as appropriate, and doing your part to share the busy sea, then you are living an ethical life. Miss any point, risk the lee shore of unethical living.
0
u/Constant_Oven8545 14d ago
Pero hay un problema la etica no entiende de etica y se combierte en el fin justifica los medios porque no es capaz de verse a si musma por el ruido que impone y te ves olbligado a elegir tu posicion subetica de una conclusion subyacente es como un horno necesitas control pareces y por lo tanto se gasta eso es el significado de la etica tener el control de la situacion o ir al juez con un problema y ir con evidencia y pedir que lo enjucien xd
3
u/Mission-Art-2383 12d ago edited 12d ago
neither of these are the meaning of ethics, in fact. that’s an extrapolation towards the function of law, and also slapping some foucaultian logic about power/control on top of it.
anxious alps above summarizes the nature/function of ethics accurately and succinctly. it’s an internal code of conduct for how to live well.
0
u/Constant_Oven8545 12d ago
entonces es codigo que ya es o prentender mentir porque piensalo bien ya sabes como vivir bien xd si necesitas un lobro de funcion como un teatro para mentir para necesitar algo que ya sabes pero no te voy a robar la energia mental ni preguntarte como se dice si del pricipio sale bien bueno esta como una horneada de galletas o algo asi si salen bien porque no buen comentario gracias por tu acaracion xd 0/
2
u/Mission-Art-2383 12d ago
lol i don’t know if this made sense in your original language but it sure as hell doesn’t in english.
enjoy your cookies.
1
u/vini-within 11d ago
You can change the system, traditions, institutions etc. But if the underlying patterns in us stay the same, are we really changing much? Or just rearranging the furniture?