TO THE DEFINITION OF THE SUBSTANCE
OF MORALITY
p Many accept without any doubt the significance of knowledge and of a scientific approach as a precondition for the realization of moral intentions. But do knowledge and a scientific approach exert An influence on man’s moral principles and goals themselves or does science merely determine the means rather than’the goals?
p We will find the answers by examining the specific question—why is it that atheists do not set as their goal the salvation of the soul and eternal bliss in heaven? Because, apparently, they regard the salvation of the soul, heaven and hell as inventions; many maintain this position proceeding from scientifically-based convictions. Here the dependence of moral principles and goals upon science is obvious. Of course, the notions “ends” and “means” are relative: a given goal might be a means to a more general goal. In turn a means, considered as that which must still be implemented, is in fact a goal. However, incorporating a given goal within the framework of more general ends, and the latter within still more general ends, we might come to the conclusion that the moral goal is good "in general”, i.e., something abstract. In order to avoid this conclusion good and evil must be given definition. But as soon as we pose this question, we are forced to turn to human needs, to problems concerning the development of society, in a word, we are forced to adopt a scientific approach to examining phenomena. Thus the scientific approach turns out to be a necessary condition for the rational definition not only of the means of achieving moral goals, but 27 also of these goals themselves, of moral conceptions and principles.
p Philosophers and religious thinkers have from ancient times proclaimed moral ideals and high ethical principles and have seeked moral perfection. Christianity proselytized the love of humanity; the ancient teaching of Hinduism argued that a disdain for property and a refusal to acknowledge the very notion of “mine” were virtues. The Jacobins preached freedom, equality and fraternity. But none of these ideals were brought into reality.
p So, it is essential to choose real ideals and to find real means to implement them. The task of clarifying the reality of an ideal and of searching for real means of achieving them is a scientific one. Only proceeding from a scientific position, incorporating all of reality, is one capable of discovering the reasons underlying the moral malaise of mankind and of finding effective remedies.
p Precisely such a scientific formulation for the problem of ethics was articulated by Marxism. Communism as an ethical and social ideal was in existence long before Marx and Engels. Their contribution consisted not so much in the clarification of this ideal as in pointing out the ways of achieving this ideal on the basis of scientific theory.
p Lenin wrote: "Communist morality is based on the struggle for the consolidation and completion of communism.” [27•1 The first proposition of the moral code, formulated in the Programme of the CPSU, states: "devotion to the cause of communism”. Clearly, this proposition will acquire a precise meaning only once it is understood exactly what is meant under the "cause of communism”, and how "the struggle for the consolidation and completion of communism" can and must be carried out. In this instance simple references to communist ideals will not suffice, because we are concerned not only with these ideals but with the cause of communism, i.e., with the actual ways of implementing these ideals. A serious answer to this question can be given only on the basis of scientific theory. Therefore the notion of communist morality, if isolated from science, is lacking in precise meaning and, bereft of scientific understanding, turns into a slogan which can support a wide range of content. To vote "for communism" is a question of moral choice, but this choice is seriously comprehended only when it is understood precisely what an individual is choosing 28 when he relies upon a scientific concept of communism. It was not for nothing that Lenin called to learn communism, for without comprehensive knowledge, without a serious intellectual effort communism could turn into a "mere signboard”, and "such superficiality would be decidedly fatal.” [28•1
p The question, consequently, becomes that of defining on what an individual bases his convictions. Does he find his premises in a blind faith in the dogma of any given teaching, in authority, in personal infallibility, or does he try to think through his convictions rationally to verify and strengthen them with serious knowledge? Of course, one can never be omniscient, nor can he predict the future in full. But this does not imply that one is left with faith only, as the unconditional acceptance of any given and unverifiable proposition. In contrast to faith, the scientific position accepts nothing unconditionally, without demonstration or foundation. With faith an individual rejects his own essence as a rational being: on the other hand, he affirms this essence if he endeavours critically to apprehend reality (including his self). Such a position does not deprive him of the solidity of his convictions but provides him with another, firmer basis than that given by faith, for in this case the convictions are well thought out and rest on solid ground. The objective meaning of the propagation of faith is often reduced to converting people into a “flock” which the shepherd can guide in any convenient direction. For this reason Lenin took an uncompromising stance towards religion and any other blind faith. He wrote: "To accept anything on trust, to preclude critical application and development, is a grievous sin....” [28•2 When communists declared that their ethics was a class one, this was an expression not of their faith, but of the scientific understanding of the class nature of morality in a class society.
p The world outlook of an individual includes not only his general view of the world but also his over-all moral position. Therefore an integral scientific world outlook necessarily links up this position with a scientific understanding of the world and apprehends it proceeding from the same general scientific approach. Rejection of this would signify if not a general denial of the scientific approach to ideological problems, then at least a dualism: science remains science, and ethics remains 29 ethics. But then ethics is inevitably transferred to the sphere of pure subjectivism or of religious faith. It is not for nothing that the standard-bearers of faith take up arms against those who defend the idea of a link between science and morality. The question is posed as follows: either an integral scientific world outlook or a hodge-podge of science, dogmatism and faith in God or in earthly “infallible” gods.
The scientific world outlook advocates a scientific approach to all phenomena. This excludes a division into "spheres of influence" according to which external being belongs to science whereas good and ideals belong to faith. This is how the question of the influence of knowledge and a scientific approach upon morality is to be resolved.
Notes
[27•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 295.
[28•1] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 288
[28•2] Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 630.