Having toyed with this idea, I have concluded that it is a cheap shot. Socialism is no more rooted in envy than capitalism is rooted in greed. What one can say is that envy is the characteristic vice of socialists, just as greed is the characteristic vice of capitalists. But there is no need that a socialist or capitalist, as such, be vicious.
Suppose Sam’s motive for becoming a socialist is envy: he cannot stand it that some have much more than him. It does not follow that there are no good reasons for socialism. What follows is merely that none of those good reasons -- assuming dubiously that there are some -- played a motivating role within Sam’s psychic economy. Now suppose that Carl’s motive for advocating capitalism is greed: he has an inordinate desire to pile up loot for his own enjoyment. It does not follow that there are no good reasons for capitalism. What follows is merely that none of these good reasons -- assuming correctly that there are some -- played a motivating role within Carl’s psychic economy.
This reminded me of Galbraith's remark about the happy alignment between the interests of the individuals or groups who propose public policies, and the results of such policies. (Galbraith was thinking that policies which are for the common good, and which have the side-effect of benefiting the wealthy, are usually put forward by the wealthy, but he could as well have been talking about his own policies of higher salaries for academics, teachers and public employees).
What does this imply about the character of ethical arguments, and the 'is / ought' question? All ethical arguments are really given as self-interested arguments in disguise. And they are really taken as such. The rules, however, are that neither the real reason for giving, and the real reason for accepting such arguments must never be mentioned. This explains the odd logical character of ethical arguments. When does something being the case imply that something ought to be the case? Answer: when speaker and hearer accept that with the antecedent true, the truth of consequent is in their best interests. However, since the real reason for validity is not allowed to be discussed, reasons must be sought elsewhere. But rarely found.
By 'real reason' you mean motive. Your use of the universal quantifier makes your claim easy to refute. I am opposed to abortion, and I have arguments. But how am I self-interested? I am not a fetus, and I don't believe I ever will be one again. So it is a stretch that self-interest is my 'real reason.' If I were a judge or a paid spokesman for the Amer. Bar Assoc., and I advocated higher pay for judges, it would be a different story. But even then, I might actually have a good argument.
I'd say you are being cynical or too cynical if the latter is an allowable expression. I don't deny that a lot of ethical reasoning is nothing but rationalization of interests.
I would say that not everything immoral ought to be illegal; so even if homosexual practices (as opposed to the disposition thereto) are immoral, I would say that they, or at least those which are between or among consenting adults, should not be made illegal. Abortion is a different story. One of the legitimate functions of the state is the protection of innocent human life.
I do, however, support a woman's right to shoes.
Humanity's propensity for socialism seems to be ideal proof of Original Sin. That such vile folly should so many times be carried through the entirety of its evil, wretched course to inevitable ruin, but still trotted out reverently as the Only Solution, seems to validate Christianity's baleful view of man as broken.
I think, however, that adherence to socialism validates Arthur Janov's biologically based description of neurosis, exemplifying the ease of one generation inducing it in the next. Freud's deeply crazy and completely fraudulent doctrines were concocted to keep him from discovering that what the mind represses is grief, not sexual desire. The closer he got to feeling his own Pain, the faster he came up with such silly but highly protective notions as the Oedipus complex, polymorphous perversity, or the anal personality, delusions which only the highly neurotic could ever take seriously. Real people instinctively giggle in pity at such fashionable nonsense.
This is not the same as when the left seeks to psychoanalyze its opponents into silence with glib aspersions of neurosis. Their concept of neurosis has a much to do with real neurosis as astrology does with real planets. Just another catch-all condemnation.
Real neurosis is a subtle and deeply ideosyncratic biomental malfunction with vastly tragic cultural and medical consequences. It starts with excess birth-stress and becomes permanent in the first few years of life, warping personality, easily able to promote eventual membership in insane causes.
Those blessed by natural, low-stress births can turn out much more sane than most, because their own parents' neuroticisms do not get passed on so readily. There has been a big crop of them over the last few decades, and I expect they weren't suckers for socialist recruiters. Next time the left want's to 'study' the psychology of conservatives, let them survey how many Young Republicans had good births, and how many angry lefties had bad ones.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.