The problem, however, is how it is decided and especially who decides what is detrimental behaviour. Because there are always humans who decide this it can happen that their preferences influence their decisions. But this is a characteristic of every totalitarian regime and not only restricted to communism (it's also the case in absolutistic monarchies, theocracies, banana republics, etc.).
The difference between western democracies and the totalitarian regimes that have existed ever since is the fact that in western societies criticism is allowed and the decision making of the authorities is transparent (or at least to a great deal) so it is extremely difficult to misuse your position to secure your privileges because this is what really happens in totalitarian societies those in charge try to keep their privileges by misusing the legal system since they are able to do so. Therefore they never murder or steal but execute or confiscate. They claim that it is for the good of the country or society or because it's the will of some god whereas in reality that person was only a threat to their privileges. Of course they didn't want the populace to behave this way but they expected them to follow the rules they (sometimes) disregard.
The communist states wanted their people to be moral and sometimes they could even be compared to Christian morals. They wanted people to get along with each other and altruistic behaviour was sometimes more emphasized than in the West. Children were thaught to help older people and if they were old enough they were required to help with the harvest or to collect medical herbs or do similar stuff without being paid for. Also I've often heard from people from former communistic countries that people from western countries show a more selfish and less moral behaviour and I must admit that this is generally true (from my observations). Therefore I'd say there are no communist morals, since communism is only an economical system.
So in order to judge the morals of a society you have to look how the average people behave and not those in power because they often enough put themselves above the law according to the motto: "quod licet jovi non licet bovi". In our western societies this principle doesn't apply any more (or let's say it has been reduced to a quantité négligeable) and so we have the most personal freedom without the society falling appart (and I think the success of our societies speaks for itself).
Now, that were my 0.02$
Fine analysis, BMCDA, and not much to quibble with. Except I’m wondering why you seem to have such difficulty drawing conclusions from what appear to be your own premises.
You put your finger on the problem when you say that what system of morality gets translated into the laws of particular societies is “always” decided by powerful men. Everything you say clearly reveals that you think there may be something “wrong” with this, at least potentially. You suggest that the American system is a successful order because it has found institutional mechanisms to keep expressions of “the rule of men” at a practical minimum. You seem to suggest that totalitarian regimes are “bad” because they cannot restrain leaders who wish to impose their own system of “morality” in furtherance of their larger goals.
I’m with you so far! But if you and I both know that “rule of men” is “bad,” then who’s rule is “good?”
And why do we suppose the rule of men is “bad” in the first place? Do we know there is something better? If so, what? And how do we know it?
The thought has occurred to me that human beings by nature universally, somehow or other, seem to have some sort of in-built sense of justice that isn’t dependent on cultural conditioning or intellectual attainment. Natural law theory is premised in the idea that just and good laws satisfy the perennial requirements of human life, which are rooted in individual human nature and the life of specific communities in which individuals are rooted.
Thus, there appears to be something at the “bottom” of just and good laws that is not and cannot be the creation of a man or a group of men: It is ulterior to us, a something “given.” And it is given to us in such as way as somehow to be understandable by us.
Well, such questions make for an interesting speculation for those so inclined.
I’d just like to add, in closing, that our American system of justice is a great culmination of classical and Judeo-Christian thought and experience. And to further point out that, from these sources, has evolved a highly successful rule of law premised on the liberty, dignity, and sanctity of the human person. It should come as no surprise that all three of these great traditions regard man in his essential human nature as the image of God – which, when you boil it all down, is all that stands as the basis of the natural liberty, dignity, and sanctity of the human person.
The difficulty in speaking with macroevolutionists on such questions seems to consist in the fact that their theory is not conformable with the idea of a human nature that is relatively fixed over vast eons of time. So with them you cannot successfully argue that justice has anything to do with the requirements of universal human nature. Quite the contrary.
In the matter of justice, the logic of their position demands that “lawgivers” will always be the powerful men, the “fittest survivors” of the struggle for survival – of the species, of the “selfish gene,” of the libido dominandi – whatever it is that is supposedly trying to survive under their scenario….
On such a theory, it is to be quite reasonably expected that the humble and powerless would always be the victims and sacrifices…and so, the entire idea of Justice (let alone “equal justice under law”) is dead from the get-go.
At least, that’s what it all looks like to me. I’ll be happy to stand corrected, if I’m missing something here. Thanks again, BMCDA, for your thoughtful and provocative essay. Best, bb.