The Ethical Dimension of Eastern European Neo-Marxism

In the process of modernization, Western societies have gradually neglected the guiding role of external ethical rules and internal moral character, leading to a dual crisis in moral theory and practice. Against this backdrop, due to the constraints of specific historical conditions and the suppression of individual personality and freedom in reality, the socialist countries of Eastern Europe after World War II also faced moral problems. Influenced by this, various schools of Eastern European Neo-Marxism turned to ethical research. In the process of reflecting on Eastern European socialism, thinkers from different schools constructed their own moral theories, such as the meta-ethical research of the Yugoslav Praxis School’s Kangrga and Stojanović’s thought on the “ethics of the revolutionary movement,” the moral theory of the “Other” by Poland’s Zygmunt Bauman, and the “ethics of personality” of the Budapest School’s Heller in Hungary. It is precisely through the collision and dialogue of these diverse thoughts that Eastern European Neo-Marxism inherited Marxist ethical thought at a deep theoretical level, while also promoting the deepening and development of Marxist ethics in the contemporary era, thereby making its ethics one of the theories with significant status and far-reaching influence in the history of Eastern European Neo-Marxism.

西方社会在现代化进程中逐渐忽视外在伦理规则和内在道德品性的导向作用，从而导致道德理论和实践的双重危机。在这样的大背景下，由于特定历史条件的限制以及现实中人的个性和自由的压抑情形，二战后的东欧社会主义国家也面临着道德问题。受此影响，东欧新马克思主义众多流派纷纷转向伦理研究。各个流派的思想家们在对东欧社会主义进行反思的过程中构建了各自的道德理论，如南斯拉夫实践派的坎格尔加的元伦理研究与斯托扬诺维奇的“革命运动的伦理学”思想，波兰齐格蒙特·鲍曼的“他者”道德理论，匈牙利布达佩斯学派赫勒的“个性伦理学”等。正是在众多思想的碰撞和对话中，东欧新马克思主义在理论的深度层面继承了马克思主义的伦理思想，同时也推动了马克思主义伦理学在当代的深化与发展，从而使其伦理学成为了东欧新马克思主义发展史中具有重要地位和深远影响的理论之一。

Although they were in similar social environments in Eastern Europe and faced analogous ethical problems, thinkers from different schools adopted different perspectives in viewing and addressing these issues, thereby developing distinctive ethical theories. Kangrga’s meta-ethics uses logical and linguistic methods to provide a clear exposition of moral concepts. Stojanović, addressing the ethical dilemmas of Yugoslavia, reinterpreted Marx’s ethical thought as the ethics of the revolutionary movement. Heller and Bauman, from a postmodern perspective, interpreted morality, emphasizing plurality, individuality, and subjectivity, and both attached importance to the ontological status of morality, stressed individual moral responsibility, and committed themselves to constructing individual morality. Although both Heller and Bauman understood morality as a non-rational impulse, unlike Bauman, who primarily placed hope for the generation of the moral individual in this moral impulse and thereby neglected and negated universal moral norms, Heller emphasized the importance of moral norms in real society.

虽然同样处于东欧相似的社会环境中，也面对类似的伦理问题，但各个流派的思想家看待和应对问题的角度不同，从而发展出各具特色的伦理思想。坎格尔加的元伦理学以逻辑和语言学的方法对道德概念进行了明晰阐述。斯托扬诺维奇针对南斯拉夫的伦理困境，通过重新界定马克思伦理思想而将其解释为革命运动的伦理思想。赫勒和鲍曼则从后现代的视角对道德进行解读，强调多元、个性和主体性，并且都重视道德的本体论地位，强调个人的道德责任，致力于构建个体道德。尽管赫勒和鲍曼都把道德理解为非理性的冲动，但不同于鲍曼将道德个体的生成主要寄希望于这种道德冲动进而忽视和否定普遍的道德规范，赫勒强调的则是现实社会中道德规范的重要性。

Eastern European Neo-Marxist ethics exhibits a realistic character with a clear orientation. The ethical thought of Eastern European Neo-Marxism unfolded in the process of thinkers personally participating in the arduous practical movement of Eastern European socialism, which made them more attentive to the practical significance of the moral and ethical theories they constructed. Stojanović advocated establishing an “ethics of the revolutionary movement,” emphasizing that ethical revolution must take a holistic humanist revolution encompassing economics and politics as its prerequisite, and valuing the popular character of revolution. Similarly, as a social critical theory, in contrast to the thought of early Western Marxist thinkers such as Lukács and Gramsci, which emerged from reflections on the European proletarian revolutionary movement of the time, thinkers of Eastern European Neo-Marxism like Heller primarily based themselves on the socialist practice of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Their theoretical focus lay in achieving profound transformation of Eastern European society at the ideological level through cultural critique, reflecting the diverse explorations of the socialist path by Eastern European Neo-Marxism, with the aim of continuing the historical destiny of socialism. In this sense, Heller, grounded in Marx’s theoretical perspective, inherited and deepened Marx’s thought on practical morality. Marx started from the real life of people and their material activities; Heller also focused on living individuals in real life, starting from the doubly contingent individual in modern society to achieve the goal of the “good person,” and the setting of the dimension of virtue is a reflection of this thought. As mentioned earlier, the unique moral conditions of Eastern European socialist countries gave rise to Heller’s ethics of personality, and at the same time, Heller recognized that mainstream Western ethics at the time lacked the connotation and constraint of virtue, so her ethical thought exhibits a distinct dimension of virtue. Virtue refers to the inner moral character of a person, which, together with factors such as personality and freedom, belongs to the moral subjectivity of the human being. By injecting the dimension of virtue into human moral subjectivity, Heller achieves a balance and guidance of personality and freedom. Heller’s ethical thought is rooted in the human condition, rooted in reality, which is reflected in her setting of the “good person.” Heller’s “good person” is one who possesses the ability to distinguish good from evil and has noble moral character, serving as the highest moral model for moral individuals to emulate.

东欧新马克思主义伦理学体现出具有明确指向的现实性特点。东欧新马克思主义伦理思想是在思想家们亲身参与艰苦的东欧社会主义实践运动过程中展开的，这使他们更关注所构建的道德伦理理论的现实意义。斯托扬诺维奇主张建立一种“革命运动的伦理”，强调伦理革命要以包含经济、政治等的整体的人道主义革命为前提，重视革命的人民性。同样作为社会批判理论，相对于卢卡奇、葛兰西等早期西方马克思主义思想家的思想产生于对当时欧洲无产阶级革命运动的反思，赫勒等东欧新马克思主义思想家则主要立足于苏联和东欧的社会主义实践，其理论关注点在于通过文化批判在思想层面实现对东欧社会的深刻变革，体现了东欧新马克思主义对社会主义道路的多样化探索，以期实现社会主义历史命运的延续。在这个意义上，赫勒立足于马克思的理论视野，继承和深化了马克思关于实践的道德的思想。马克思从现实的人的生活及他们从事的物质活动出发，赫勒也关注现实生活中活生生的作为个体的人，从现代社会中双重偶然性的个人出发以期达到“好人”的目标，德性维度的设定就是这一思想的反映。如前所述，东欧社会主义国家独特的道德状况催生了赫勒的个性伦理学，同时赫勒也意识到当时主流西方伦理学缺乏德性的内涵和制约，故其伦理思想体现出鲜明的德性维度。德性是指人内在的道德品性，它与个性、自由等因素一同从属于人的道德主体性。赫勒通过在人的道德主体性中注入德性的维度，达到对个性、自由的制衡和引导。赫勒的伦理思想根植于人的境况，根植于现实，这反映在赫勒对“好人”的设定上。赫勒的“好人”是拥有善恶区分能力和高尚道德品性的人，是道德个体效仿的最高道德典范。

Unlike Western Marxist ethical thought, Eastern European Neo-Marxism is more concerned with the problem of moral rationality. Moral rationality, born out of rationalism, has become a focus of contemporary philosophers. One of the important topics of the problem of moral rationality is the relationship between moral individualism and moral communitarianism. As a main representative of Eastern European Neo-Marxist ethics, Heller unifies the dimension of personality and the dimension of virtue, reflecting her concern with the problem of moral rationality. Normativity and subjectivity are two inseparable aspects of morality. Heller’s moral theory of personality understands the “good person” as one who, mediated by virtue, can both reasonably follow certain objectively existing moral principles and norms in society and fully exert the role of the moral subject, thereby resolving the problem of moral rationality.

不同于西方马克思主义伦理思想，东欧新马克思主义更加关切道德合理性问题。脱胎于理性主义的道德合理性，成为当代哲学家关注的焦点。道德合理性问题的重要论题之一是道德个体主义与道德共同体主义的关系问题。作为东欧新马克思主义伦理学的主要代表，赫勒将个性维度和德性维度统一起来，反映了她对道德合理性问题的关切。规范性与主体性是道德两个不可分割的方面，赫勒的个性道德理论将“好人”理解为在德性的中介下，既能合理遵循一定社会客观存在的道德原则、道德规范，又能充分发挥道德主体作用的人，从而解决了道德合理性问题。

A prominent feature of Eastern European Neo-Marxist theory is its humanist appeal. Related to this, thinkers of Eastern European Neo-Marxism emphasize developing ethics within the perspective of personality ethics. However, unlike Western ethics, Eastern European Neo-Marxism also integrates the dimension of virtue into personality ethics. For example, while emphasizing personality morality, Heller also keenly recognizes that ethics and morality are inevitably constrained by social reality. Therefore, she strives to develop individuals under the real conditions of Eastern European socialism who both satisfy the ideal of freedom and meet social requirements, thereby constructing a system of moral theory that contains both the dimension of personality and the dimension of virtue. The unity of the dimension of personality and the dimension of virtue is a basic characteristic of Heller’s ethical thought, and this is precisely what Western ethics and other Eastern European Neo-Marxists neglect. Although MacIntyre, a representative of the contemporary Western school of virtue ethics, advocates the revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics, his thought is based on communitarianism, thereby neglecting the important role of personality. Although Bauman advocates the personality moral characteristics of individuals, he places more emphasis on the individual’s moral responsibility to the “Other” and lacks attention to the dimension of virtue. In comparison, the concept of personality has always been a focus of Heller’s attention. The core of the dimension of personality she advocates includes the awakening of subject consciousness, autonomous choice, human freedom, and personality liberation, which responds to the call for moral individualization after the Enlightenment and has contemporary rationality. But she also recognizes that one-sided emphasis on individual characteristics may bring the dangers of moral relativism and moral nihilism. To resolve this contradiction, Heller injects the dimension of virtue into her ethical thought, forming a unique moral theory of personality. Heller’s moral theory of personality refers to the practical relationship that an individual with personality consciously establishes, in their own special way, with various universally valid ethical rules of their time. Due to the diversity of moral norms and values in modern society and the moral situation divided by spheres, modern people have characteristics different from any previous era. They have more choice, initiative, and creativity in moral practice, but at the same time, they face more temptations and uncertainty in choice. This requires modern people to take universal ethical rules as the basis for thought and action, rather than acting arbitrarily and without restraint. But how to better connect the subject with multiple possibilities of choice with the object of ethical rules is the focus of Heller’s moral theory of personality. It is precisely by using the dimension of virtue as a bridge between subject and object that she effectively coordinates the two, enabling morality to play its role to the maximum extent.

东欧新马克思主义理论的突出特征是人道主义诉求，与此相关联，东欧新马克思主义思想家们强调在个性伦理的视域内发展伦理学。不过，与西方伦理学不同，东欧新马克思主义还将德性维度融入个性伦理之中，如赫勒在强调个性道德的同时，也敏锐地认识到，伦理与道德不可避免地会受到社会现实的制约，因此她力求在东欧社会主义现实条件下，发展出既满足自由理念又符合社会要求的个体，进而构建了一套内含个性维度和德性维度的道德理论体系。个性维度和德性维度的统一是赫勒伦理思想的基本特点，而这正是西方伦理学和其他东欧新马克思主义者忽视的地方。当代西方美德伦理学派的代表人物麦金太尔虽然提倡亚里士多德德性伦理学的复兴，但其思想是基于社群主义的，从而忽略了个性的重要作用。鲍曼虽然主张人的个性道德特征，但他更强调个人对“他者”的道德责任而缺少对德性维度的重视。与之相比，个性的概念一直是赫勒关注的焦点，她所倡导的个性维度的核心是追求主体意识的觉醒、自主选择、人的自由、个性解放等内容，这顺应了启蒙运动后对于道德个体化的呼唤，具有时代合理性。但她也意识到，片面强调个体性特征可能带来道德相对主义和道德虚无主义的危险。为了化解这个矛盾，赫勒在其伦理思想中注入德性维度，形成了独特的个性道德理论。赫勒的个性道德理论是指：有个性的个人在行动中以自己特殊的方式自觉地与同时代各种普遍有效的伦理规则建立起来的实践关系。由于现代社会道德规范和价值观念的多样性以及按领域划分的道德状况，使现代人具有不同于以往任何时代的特点，他们在道德实践中拥有更多的选择性、主动性和创造性，但同时他们也面临着更多的诱惑和选择的不确定性，这就要求现代人必须以普遍伦理规则为思想和行动的依据，而不是随心所欲、为所欲为。但是如何将拥有多种选择可能的主体与伦理规则客体更好地联结起来，这是赫勒个性道德理论的关注点。她正是通过将德性维度作为沟通主客体的桥梁，将二者有效地协调起来，使道德最大限度地发挥作用。

It should be said that the ethical interpretations of Eastern European neo-Marxist thinkers were completed within the horizon of Marxism; such interpretations are both an inheritance of Marxist ethics and a creative development of it. However, it must be pointed out that, on the one hand, some Eastern European neo-Marxists’ emphasis on individuality is based on an individualistic cognition. They stress the importance of individual choice, emphasize that the individual takes priority over the social totality, and believe that the full realization of individual value means the achievement of species-essence. For example, as a unity of the dimension of individuality and the dimension of virtue, Heller’s “good person” focuses more on individual freedom while neglecting the demands of the community and the collective. What she emphasizes is moral individualism, without achieving unity with moral collectivism. The Budapest School’s Fehér and Poland’s Kołakowski also hold the same view on this point. On the other hand, regarding the above thinkers’ understanding of the relationship between the individual and society, Eastern European neo-Marxists such as Kosík, Schaff, and Sviták hold the opposite view, arguing that the individual bears moral responsibility toward the social totality, opposing the individual’s exaggeration and abuse of the role of reason, and endorsing the concept of the “total social individual.”

应该说，东欧新马克思主义思想家们对伦理学的阐释是在马克思主义的视域内完成的，这种阐释既是对马克思主义伦理学的继承，又是对它的创造性发展。然而必须指出，一方面，部分东欧新马克思主义者对个性的强调是基于个体化的认知。他们强调个体选择的重要意义，强调个体优先于社会总体，认为个体价值的完全实现就意味着作为类本质的达成。例如作为个性维度和德性维度的统一体，赫勒的“好人”更多关注的是个体的自由，而忽视了对共同体、集体的要求。她强调的是道德个体主义，而没有实现与道德集体主义的统一。布达佩斯学派费赫尔和波兰的科拉科夫斯基也对此持相同看法。另一方面，针对上述思想家对个体与社会关系的理解，科西克、沙夫和斯维塔克等东欧新马克思主义者却持有相反看法，认为个体应对社会总体负有道德责任，反对个体对理性作用的夸大和滥用，赞同“总体社会性个体”的观点。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗