QUESTION THREE

3. What does Marx mean when he says "morally is essentially ideology?" Furthermore, what is his criticism of Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx's view of human nature and an ideal society and compare this to Hobbes's view of human nature and an ideal society. Who do you agree with and why? (again, it may be helpful to write this in sections so that each philosopher is given his due.)

the question asks what marx means by "morally is essentially ideology." now, i will take that as a typo and assume that it's "morality" instead of "morally." for marx, every human situations have economic basis in it. whether one realizes it or not, economics principles underlie and become the motives to one's actions. marx thinks it is foolish for people who are not willing to admit to this. morality principles that have been formulated by philosophers for ages, then, are simply "ideology." though they are considered the product of pure reasons, they have also been influenced by these economics principles in the process of formulation.

mill's and bentham's utalitarianism is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. for mill, it is important that the maximization of pleasure is for the majority, or the most, of the society. for marx, this idea of utalitarianism is just another form of labor exploitation. one would always wants to maximize one's pleasure, and since the nature of human is influenced by economics principles, the idea of maximization of pleasure promotes capitalism, and in capitalism, labor exploitation.

hobbes' ethical theory is essentially claiming that nothing is intrinsically good. people call good the things they desire and bad the things they do not desire. for hobbes, morality is relative for individuals, as in good and bad; what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. marx would entirely agree with this idea since he himself proposes in his ethical theory that what is good for one society does not necessarily imply good for another society, even though their situations are alike. for both hobbes and marx, morality IS simply ideology; concepts of morality that philosophers have been proposing are not a depiction of what the real life actually is.

i would have to agree with marx's and hobbes' theory. one must realize that no matter what ethical principle one holds, it is only true for oneself. any ethical principle is relative, not universal like what kant maintains. although i don't quite agree about economics principle influencing everyone's actions, marx and hobbes are correct in saying that what is true for one is not true for everyone else. the way i see it, economic principle is one that influences human nature, but not the ONLY one. there are many other factors that influence human nature as well.