The Marxists find it easy to reaching consensus regarding their ethical beliefs because of their single minded approach to the Marxist theological, philosophical, biological, economical and historical disciplines. Though these ethics have no absolute foundation, the Marxist believes the dialectical view of the class struggle is foundation enough. Such a view dictates the conflicts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and since their later exploits the former, the two classes are of different moralities and Marxist/Leninist believe that a new morality for a new man would be established if the bourgeoisies are said to be capitalist who are controlled by the Old-Morality system, the Old religion moral code which makes conspicuous the socio-physical hopelessness of the proletariat (communist).
Hatred becomes obligatory in the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisies and it would seem that unless a member of the propertied class could somehow become a proletarian, anything he does, no matter how moral by his standards, will be complemented by Marxist with contempt.
Justification of the MeansBased on Marxist, the end justifies the means regardless of what you do; it is moral if it brings the world close to eradication social classes. An action is moral when it helps over throw the bourgeoisies. And whoever believes in this slogan is actually going to use any means.
Moral revolutionAccording to Marxist, revolution is the perfect way to over throw the bourgeoisies and lift up the proletariat. Also, the communists believed that the struggle against any hindrance to the cause of their construction is moral and humane.
Marxist backed up his point by saying that in biological evolutionary process, nature accumulates the good and discards the bad, hence the fit must survive both biological and socially. That is to say, the Marxist's revolution is morally right even if mistakes are made and even when it involves mass killings. British Journalist D.G. Stewart Smith estimates that international communism has been responsible for 83 million deaths between 1917 and 1964. From a Marxist/Leninist perspective, if 83 million died to abolish social classes and private property, it was worth the price-even morally just. Marxists judge the result, not the methods, the consequences and not the act.
The Marxist/Leninist ethics believe the general (world) moral principles are immoral with the Christian ethics inclusive in which they believe gives the bourgeoisies underserved and harsh advantage over the proletariat. This has led to the vogue idea of the "creation of a new moral man" which must be pursued by all means, regardless of the process of pursuit. They feel what is moral is reaching the end and even if processes the world considers as immoral are adopted to achieve this goal, they strongly agree it is moral provided the capitalist system is wiped out for the communist one. The justification of this Idea is that even the clergy men and 'so-called' Christian priests then were all friends to the affluent, if not affluent men themselves.
Critical EvaluationThe Class Morality, coined by the Marxist/Leninist ethics is an "equality and Justice" driven ethics. It is very straight forward with a defined aim. We all need equality in every aspect of Life in order to have equal chances of survival in the society. So molestation, extortion, torment e.t.c are the main repugnant factors which initiated the hatred for the capitalist and the capitalism system. This is quite an outstanding motive and indeed a strong based will.
But their approach to this problem and method of resolving it is their weakness. Dissolving the classes into one group alone is something that can never happen. Even if it does, who will do all the manual labor? Definitely, bourgeoisies will emerge again. Would you continue fighting that class? You will realize that you are fighting nature and he who fights nature fights against himself.
Secondly "a good end justifies the means" not just "an end". And a good end is explained or defined by the processes leading to it. If you kill someone because he is depriving another of his right then you do the same because everyone has the right to live (which is the greatest right an individual can ever have). So, you just deprived someone of his right and you need to be killed too. If this linear sequence of murder continues, I do not for see a last man standing because all will eventually die. Even if such chain reaction does not occur, it is totally hypocritical. So, two wrongs can never make a right and complicating or compounding a problem is rather mistaken for creating a solution.
Finally, some may argue that this theory helped in the development of a country like Ghana which is becoming one of the world's fast developing nation in terms of stability and governance. But, in as much as it worked for Ghana does not guarantee effectiveness to another country. Since these classes cannot be merged to form one, the only solution of great mutualism between the two classes.