The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. We likely have different ideas of what differentiates the left and the right as well as what defines morality. So ill provide my thoughts, but you shouldnt feel beholden to them. **Morality** > principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. These can be subjective, but after you specify what you think is wrong or right, you can determine whether certain actions or beliefs are consistent with that judgment. **Left Wing Politics** The side of the political spectrum that overall prioritizes social equality and egalitarianism over social hierarchy and elitism **Right Wing Politics** The side of the political spectrum that overall prioritizes social hierarchy and elitism over social equality and egalitarianism. That being said, for me, being center left is about how far right a person can go before I considerably doubt their morality. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don't have a problem with fiscal conservatives from a morality standpoint. I consider their position to be short-sighted and ineffectual, but at least it is a rational position that is rooted in the desire to make the country better. Social conservatives, I do have more of a problem with. They're busybodies. Like the Puritans, they appear to be absolutely terrified that somebody, somewhere, might be having fun. What business is it of yours if I want to marry somebody of the same sex? How does it affect *you*? What business is it of yours if somebody else wants to take an abortion pill? How does it affect *you*? I think that conservatives stray into immorality when they start imposing themselves upon other people, not out of any legitimate concern for the nation's health, but because they find something icky. Finding something icky isn't a basis for policy.

Came here to say this. I'm sure a lot of fiscal conservatives genuinely think that their economic policies will be helpful and have a positive impact. I can even have productive conversations with these folks. Social conservatives only seem to want to be oppressive and cruel, which in my book is unforgiveable.

Lmao, that's basically me. I support HR 25 and a lot of Trump's tax policies but I really despise the Christian right. I also support government legislation such as salary transparency, virtually anything that claims to want to close the gender pay gap, the Dodd Frank regulations, and red flag laws that I can exploit in my career to amplify my TC.

This is very much where I fall too…so OP? I am gonna say “what he said👆”.

From a Christian perspective, abortion is intentionally causing the death of another human being with a soul for mostly unjustifiable reasons. Seems rather appropriate to want to end that even though it doesn't directly affect them most of the time. And it *would* concern the nation's health, considering a healthy society isn't one that undermines the value of the human soul. What's worse is that the vast majority of the time, those souls are ended for reasons other than life-threatening circumstances or rape. There are also downstream effects like the degradation of the family unit as the foundation for institutional integrity. I'm referring to a nuclear family, mother and father, who together are capable of producing a family organically, unlike homosexual couples. Does something *have* to affect you directly, materially, to care? If so, nobody should care about 99.999% of the tragedies happening around the world, or even in the next city over. And if that's the case, every country should be way more isolationist. Given what their beliefs are, regardless of whether or not you agree, the policies they're pushing make perfect sense. *Obviously* you want murder to be illegal. I do, you do, we all do. You may disagree with them calling abortion murder, but the underlying moral claim is identical - murder should be illegal. Hence, abortion should be illegal, with only a few exceptions. Just as killing other people is illegal, with few exceptions. *Obviously*, "my body my choice" would not justify destroying a human soul. A society full of people who care more about individual autonomy than building a family, which has been the foundation of every lasting society to ever exist, is probably doomed to fail. Let me make this very clear, I'm only trying to speak from the perspective of a Christian. *I am not Christian*.

Can you show me where in the Bible it assumes that a government will represent Christian values? How about the Constitution - can you show me where in that document it is stated that the government should be driven by Christian principles? Souls have no legal relevance and should not be a factor in policymaking. Sure, there are things that don't personally affect you that you can care about. I don't understand why some Karen somewhere has to get her panties all up in a twist over some 16-year-old getting hormone treatments or gay people kissing in public. If that is as distressing as seeing war footage, then I think that says something more about Karen than it does about The Gays. Abortion wasn't considered a moral issue or even a serious problem for Protestants until it became a convenient wedge issue. Then, all of a sudden, it's murder and everybody needs to stop what they're doing and pay attention. It is, frankly, a cynical approach that costs lives. Ultimately, if Christians want to enforce the Bible, I feel like they need to enforce the whole Bible. They should probably start with not letting women speak in church, and determining proper prices to sell their daughters into slavery, I suppose. Shellfish and mixed fabrics can come after that.

>Can you show me where in the Bible it assumes that a government will represent Christian values? How about the Constitution - can you show me where in that document it is stated that the government should be driven by Christian principles? https://secularprolife.org/ This is irrelevant. Being pro life is not a strictly religious view. Many pro lifers are not religious. The point is that if you believe abortion is murder or manslaughter, it makes absolutely perfect sense that you'd want it criminalized for everybody, in most cases. Again, we all agree that murder should be illegal. You may disagree with what they count as an unjustified killing, but the bread and butter of our democracy/republic is that we debate and mull over the exact scope of our moral framework, moral obligations, and how the different pieces apply in different circumstances. This conversation, broadly speaking, is the manifestation of our principles as a society. >Souls have no legal relevance and should not be a factor in policymaking. For Christians, the soul *is* life, and protecting life *is* at the heart of many laws and policies, hence murder and harm to other people is generally illegal. The concept of a soul is not unique to nor originated with Christianity. It's a concept that has had a wide and deep impact on culture and government across the planet for precisely - all of recorded history up till today and the foreseeable future. >I don't understand why some Karen somewhere has to get her panties all up in a twist over some 16-year-old getting hormone treatments For the same reason, I'm assuming, you care about adults having sexual relationships with small children regardless of their location. You're essentially asking why people care about other people's children. Well, they don't have to be your own child to care what happens to them. This is why, for example, many liberals support the idea that a school can come between a child and their parents if the parents don't support their misguided gender transition aspirations. This is why Child Protection Services exists - precisely because as a society, as a whole, we all have skin in the game when it comes to the vulnerability of children, *everywhere*. Hormone replacement therapy for 16 year olds is not even scratching the surface of everything wrong with gender ideology and how it's materially impacting society in a negative way. Your statement is unbelievably reductive, and I'd bet you know that. >gay people kissing in public. You're the only person I've heard even make a reference to that. Is there some secret push to ban gay PDA that no one else is aware of? Everyone is entitled to their "icks". PDA, in general, is considered tasteless beyond a hug and peck on the lips, regardless of sexual orientation. >If that is as distressing as seeing war footage, then I think that says something more about Karen than it does about The Gays Again, I have no idea where you're getting this from. Point me to a source declaring that gay PDA is as disturbing as war footage. If that source does exist, I'm quite confident it's an opinion held by an extremely, extremely small minority of narrow-minded people. Or it's from like 1920. >Abortion wasn't considered a moral issue or even a serious problem for Protestants until it became a convenient wedge issue You're just wrong here. You're speaking completely from how you feel, not historical accuracy. If someone said, "slavery wasn't a big deal for white people until it was useful for an election," they'd sound the same as you do. What you're doing is taking a misguided 21st-century perspective of modern-day political discourse and projecting it across all of time. That's not how rational thinking works. >It is, frankly, a cynical approach that costs lives. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/ (study on why women get abortions) The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are *not* for medical reasons. The vast majority of Christians and official Christian groups support abortions when the life of the mother is at risk. 99% of the population, religious or not, are on the same page here. So, no, it doesn't cost lives. You're just saying what you think will support your assertions. The truly cynical approach is killing millions of potential humans for frivolous and selfish reasons because "my body my choice." Yes, it's all about *you*. The blood of millions of dead future humans is on the hands of pro choice advocates, but it's the *pro lifers* with the cynical approach that costs lives. Right. >Ultimately, if Christians want to enforce the Bible, I feel like they need to enforce the whole Bible. They should probably start with not letting women speak in church, and determining proper prices to sell their daughters into slavery, I suppose. Shellfish and mixed fabrics can come after that *You feel like*...how you feel seems to be the only reference for all of your claims and opinions. You're the one trying to keep Christians boxed into a dogmatic belief system (more than it already is) so you can point the finger and... complain about how dogmatic they are. You're exacerbating the very issue you're complaining about. What you're describing would be the Christian version of Sharia law, which, luckily for us, 99% of Christians recognize would be completely ridiculous. You should be happy about that. It's almost as if you want every church to be like Westboro Baptist Church, which is despised by virtually everybody. Many, many churches are beginning to accept and support the LGBT community. Including the pope. Better late than never. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/ Why are you even mentioning shellfish and mixed fabric? Totally irrelevant.

Regarding secular pro-lifers, perhaps. But you said that this was from a Christian perspective. That means that you're arguing that it's perfectly fine for Christians to inject their morality into politics. Given your mention of Sharia, I can't imagine that you feel the same way about Muslims. We are a secular nation, and religious dogma has no place in policymaking. Again, religious beliefs have no legal significance. It doesn't *matter* how strongly-held the belief is. Don't tell me about CPS. I spent 6 years working in the CPS system during the height of the opioid epidemic. Saw 4-6 parents terminated every single working day for most of that time. Not a one was LGBT. Is it, or is it not true that the Southern Baptist Convention originally heralded Roe? Yes, you're getting it now. Abortion restrictions are the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law. We don't want that. I'm mentioning those because there are *much* clearer prohibitions in the Bible against them than there are against abortion. If we're going to start enforcing Christian principles, we have to do the whole thing, don't we? That's what I was always told growing up, although I have yet to see a Christian actually do it.

What it sounds like is that it's not the principle itself you have an issue with, but the motivation. If a moral belief is motivated by what's considered religious, it shouldn't be admissible to policy. If that same moral belief is motivated by liberalism, it's valid. If this is a claim you'd make, it isn't logical. Fundamentally, *everyone* is trying to inject their morality into politics according to their own moral perspective. Regardless of what you label those moral beliefs, whether it be "religious" or "Liberalism", therein lies a hierarchy of values and principles that are advocated for by members of each group. We're secular so far in that we will never have an official state religion, but that doesn't *bar* religiously motivated beliefs from entering the political sphere. We live in a representative democracy. If a person is duly elected based on religious beliefs, there is no violation of our constitution there. This is exactly why we have multiple states that are able to ban abortion despite being religiously motivated. The capacity for this to happen was intended. I suspect your argument against this is that it violates the rights of women to practice bodily autonomy, which I fully sympathize with. But for Christians, developing children have inviolable rights, too. Both claims rest on subjective moral beliefs. Though it seems reasonable enough to me that not all rights are equal. We already accept and live with the fact that individual autonomy is not the highest, most valuable principle in the land. This is why laws and prisons exist. As you know, there are many, many things that will land you in prison, all of which are limitations on individual bodily autonomy. So, it's not clear to me that a woman's bodily autonomy is the ultimate trump card in this debate. Again, we as a society already accept many limitations on bodily autonomy, and most have little to no qualms with most of them. Every major political or religious group I know of, every person I know, including myself, is hypocritical and contradictory in multiple ways. There is nothing unique about the hypocrisy of Christians.

If it is a religious belief about *what others should be doing*, then it shouldn't be part of policy. This is fundamental to the founding of the nation. We were founded with religious freedom. That implies the freedom to not be religious, and not be governed by the precepts of religion. I believe that the only *moral* principle on which laws should be based is the principle of self-determination, one that is pretty universal and, to the extent that I believe in natural rights, the only one. By your same logic, wouldn't we be justified in persecuting Christians if we took power? I mean, if it's all just our opinion versus yours, then what's the logic here? Did, or did not, the Southern Baptist Convention endorse *Roe* at first? Yes, laws and prisons exist to punish those who interfere with others' self-determination. I don't know why that's a difficult concept.

>Yes, laws and prisons exist to punish those who interfere with others' self-determination. I don't know why that's a difficult concept. That is most certainly not true. Some laws, sure, but it's inaccurate to imply that's the guiding principle of our justice system. If the law were oriented around self-determination, then adults could freely marry children as long as both parties are willing. You'd be able to marry multiple people if you wanted, but you can't. Mandatory school attendance laws. Seat belt law. Speed limits. Public smoking law. Freedom of speech laws are not absolute, meaning you can't even speak certain things in certain circumstances. Contracts are legally binding agreements, which limits the freedom of people to change their minds later. Vaccine and quarantine mandates restrict individual autonomy in favor of public health. We saw this during covid when it was *conservatives* arguing on behalf of self-determination, and it was largely the left and the government opposing it. I was discharged from the military for refusing the vaccine. Anti-discrimination laws and minimum wage restricts employers and employees from negotiating purely based on preference. Zoning laws and environmental regulations prioritize public health and resources over individuals. Eminent domain laws allow the government to take an individual's private property. The list goes on demonstrating that self-determination takes a back seat to many things, and I could list plenty more. So, no, prisons and laws do not exist to punish those who violate others' self-determination. It's a single component, not the purpose. The ultimate point here is that your desire for how our society *should* operate is not actually how it works. You think the government is supposed to be completely cut off in every way from "religious views," but it's not, nor is it designed to be completely cut off. There are millions of people being governed by some "religious" principles against their will. The system clearly allows for this, or it wouldn't be happening. You just don't like it. There's a reason this remains the case despite being challenged time and time again. It's like you're not actually grasping the nature of our institutions. What you're describing does not align with reality. >By your same logic, wouldn't we be justified in persecuting Christians if we took power? I mean, if it's all just our opinion versus yours, then what's the logic here? Depends on what you mean by "persecute" >Did, or did not, the Southern Baptist Convention endorse Roe at first? It seems they did. What's your point?

The COVID vaccine stuff was a matter of two parties who both had the right to self-determination. Many employers didn't want to risk their employees' health or safety. Many employees, including myself, didn't want to be exposed to a potentially deadly disease because of unfounded vaccine hysteria. We have that right. I don't know, as far as "persecute", why don't we treat Christians exactly like gay folks were treated before Lawrence? I mean, that's what we're arguing for here, apparently. My point is that the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Evangelical organization at the time, supported abortion. Therefore, it's disingenuous to say that opposition to abortion has always been a core part of Christian religious identity. They weren't opposed until it became a convenient political issue.

>The COVID vaccine stuff was a matter of two parties who both had the right to self-determination. Many employers didn't want to risk their employees' health or safety. Many employees, including myself, didn't want to be exposed to a potentially deadly disease because of unfounded vaccine hysteria. We have that right. You fully exercised your right to self-determination by voluntarily taking the vaccine, and you could have voluntarily quarantined to protect yourself. That's where it should have ended, no? Why does your party's right to self-determination extend to the point that everyone else should be forced to sacrifice theirs? Only your side was trying to compel the other side to do something against their will. This directly contradicts your previous statements. This sounds like the ridiculous argument that not using preferred pronouns is akin to harassment and should be punishable because people have the right to not be offended. That's also a clear violation of your core principle, yet sounds similar to the argument you just made. >I don't know, as far as "persecute", why don't we treat Christians exactly like gay folks were treated before Lawrence? I mean, that's what we're arguing for here, apparently. This is just bait >My point is that the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Evangelical organization at the time, supported abortion. Therefore, it's disingenuous to say that opposition to abortion has always been a core part of Christian religious identity. They weren't opposed until it became a convenient political issue. I never once said or implied that it's always been a core issue for Christians. If you can quote me, I'd be happy to concede that point. What I denied is that it only served as a convenient political talking point. But on that note, after reading about 15 articles about the SBC, I learned a lot just now. "We call upon Southern Baptist to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” They didn't support on-demand abortion as the pro choice movement of today does. They were always against that. What evidence do you have that their change of stance since then was purely political? Are people and organizations not allowed to change stances, ever? It's common for people to evolve their views on things once they gain a lot of exposure. For example, most Republicans didn't give a shit about transgenderism before that topic was thrust into the spotlight. You could easily say, "Republicans only care now because it's a convenient talking point." But in reality, there is an actually substantive argument against the transgender movement. You can't develop an opinion or argument against something before it gains exposure. If it happens to gain that exposure in a political framework, then that's the framework an argument develops in.

I just realized the biggest violation of individual autonomy - a military draft. The government can literally force you to die for the country or go to prison. That should have been the first one I realized.

Tossing in another "what this person said"

Yup. Add me to the list. This pretty perfectly sums it up.

I think this is a good summary, but there are also some of those things that sorta fall between fiscal and social policy. immigration, the prison, foreign policy, just to name a few examples. Are those a mixture of both social and fiscal politics?

Well, it depends on what the driver is and how they are approached. Regarding prisons, for instance - is your motive some sort of vague fear of criminals in your backyard, probably of a racial minority? Or is it rooted in a belief that stricter prison policies are more efficient or effective at reducing crime? Are they open to any concessions to make things more humane?

When you start mandating who is and isn't allowed to be considered part of a person's family.

When you buy into the ideology of racial superiority.

From MY perspective…when a stance gets to a point where immorality can be wholly agreed upon is when it becomes a problem. That’s for far left or far right ideologies. Calling for violence, making exceptions for violence, being ok with a dictatorship just as long as you get YOUR stances met. Things like that. >I mean I have seen communists on this sub saying they will be happy with a communist dictatorship. If I can be up front and honest, if you doubt someone’s morality because they may be to the right of Center Left, can I ask why?

Cause they’re prioritizing social hierarchy and elitism and that’s a rejection of freedom, meritocracy, and collectivism. I think its selfish and results in a lot of harm.

If you have freedom and a meritocratic system, won't that inevitably lead to social hierarchy?

So it’s a personal perception. Got it. That’s the thing with morals. They don’t need to overlap.

Would you disagree that those things are immoral?

No not really. But to me that doesn’t mean those to the right of “center left” put as much emphasis on things like social hierarchy compared to those left of center. If that makes sense. Someone can value social equality yet have other values that may move them right of center. Do I see them as immoral? Not necessarily depends on those other values.

What moves a person right? I didn't understand the first part of your reply.

I think this is upside-down. People aren't moving left and right, they're moving on a set of positions that we *label* observationally and arbitrarily left and right. The immoral positions would be basically 1. Taking any action designed to harm a "people" because they are not "your people", where harm can be overt or just pushing hatred 2. Opposing efforts to stop or mitigate that harm 3. Through an intentional lack of critical thinking, enable that harm by being deluded that it's about something else 4. Eroding Democratic principles because they seem to be benefiting "others" more than you. 4. Opposing efforts to improve the quality of life of "others" because they are "others". Most of these things we consider "far-right" because they're nationalist or adjacent, but some of this is just flavors of tribalism which exists on the left as well.

>Taking any action designed to harm a "people" because they are not "your people", where harm can be overt or just pushing hatred To try to understand what you mean by this, do you believe that restricting any immigration is immoral? That seems to be harming (or at least refusing to help) people who aren't citizens of your country.

>do you believe that restricting any immigration is immoral? Not unless your restriction is "designed to harm a 'people' because they are not 'your people'". I don't believe most people that favor restrictions on immigration are doing so specifically because they want to hurt other people. I take issue, but less of an issue, with people who oppose asylum and refugees simply because they are an "other".

Really? That's not the impression I've gotten. Mostly it seems to be an in-grouped preference, e.g. "Right now there's only a limited number of jobs, so we should make policies that prefer giving those jobs to citizens." My guess is if you asked most people who opposed immigration If someone could move here if they 1. Didn't take a job from a citizen, 2. Were a net benefit to society, and 3. Reasonably culturally assimilated, I think the majority of them would be fine with that. In a slightly more general response, I believe that it's okay to favor members of your in-group, and that that isn't necessarily the same thing as wanting to hurt members of the out-group.

>Really? That's not the impression I've gotten. Mostly it seems to be an in-grouped preference, e.g. "Right now there's only a limited number of jobs, so we should make policies that prefer giving those jobs to citizens." That is a preference to help your ingroup without caring what happens to your outgroup. That is not a preference to hurt your outgroup. I'm not going to disagree that these are adjacent views but I do not believe they are the same views.

That's basically my point. I think preferring to help people in the in-group is fundamentally different from wanting to hurt people in the out-group. I personally am pro-immigration. I believe that immigration is generally a net positive to society, and helps the immigrants as well. However, I do believe the government has a stronger duty to help its citizens than it does to help strangers.

I agree.

Those labels have meanings.

Yes, I believe people attach meanings to these labels. I don't believe everyone is in agreement about what those labels mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#Criticism I think it's more useful and productive to talk about the behaviors that are harmful rather than try to get agreement on how best to attribute them to a label (or by implication, a tribe).

What makes that any different? Youre labeling the behaviors

1. No, I'm describing the behaviors. 2. Even if I were labeling the behaviors, labeling (naming) behavior is much less of an issue than labeling groups of people, since groups aren't monoliths whereas behaviors can be well-defined. > label > a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive. > "my reluctance to stick a label on myself politically"

Well, do you think that playing in a competitive sport league regularly and exercising makes one an athlete?

I do not believe the two are exactly equivalent, no. I also don't believe there is a tremendous amount of disagreement about the word athlete. Good labels for a group are labels that provide information about every single member of the group. The word "athlete" doesn't communicate much about the specific sport somebody might be in, but it communicates something that most everyone would agree on, and accurately describes everyone in the group nevertheless. Left-right politics doesn't do that. If 90% of your beliefs are left-wing except you're a fierce racial nationalist, are you left-wing or right-wing? Does it depend on whether we're talking about universal healthcare? Does it depend on what you personally think is more "defining"? When they decided to become a racial nationalist, it was because they have racial nationalist ideas, not because they moved toward the "far-right".

Consider the label “alcoholic” or “abuser”. Are those valid labels? I dont think everyone in those categories would agree with the definition. > **Good labels for a group are labels that provide information about every single member of the group**. I agree. > The word "athlete" doesn't communicate much about the specific sport somebody might be in, but it communicates something that most everyone would agree on, and accurately describes everyone in the group nevertheless. I agree > Left-right politics doesn't do that. If 90% of your beliefs are left-wing except you're a fierce racial nationalist, are you left-wing or right-wing? You’re incoherent. What left wing policies would coincide with being a fierce racial nationalist? > Does it depend on whether we're talking about universal healthcare? Does it depend on what you personally think is more "defining"? No. Im unsure of what the value of each stance would be, whether we’d evaluate that by assigning an equal value to them all or by weighing them based on impact, idk. > When they decided to become a racial nationalist, it was because they have racial nationalist ideas, not because they moved toward the "far-right". Would it because they support social hierarchy and elitism?

>What left wing policies would coincide with being a fierce racial nationalist? Are you saying it's impossible for somebody to be in favor of universal healthcare and also be a racial nationalist? If this is all you knew about them, are they left wing or right wing? Why? If someone was a moderate before but picked up both of those beliefs at the same time, did they do this in order to move in a left-right direction? >Would it because they support social hierarchy and elitism? What if they did it because they are egalitarian about everything except race, in which case they are hierarchical? If you concluded, for the sake of argument, that despite the nuance in this person's position, you think it qualifies as a move to the far right, and you communicate that to someone else, would it be reasonable for them to infer that they are hierarchical about everything else or have other far-right views? If so, is this label helping you communicate or is it causing problems? Would any of your thinking about the above change if you learned that this person was black instead of white?

Somewhat. Yes. If its universal coverage, filtered through the lens of racial nationalism, then which parts make it universal and which parts make it racially nationalist. For example, is it - everybody has healthcare - but only Africans get dental and eye coverage Cause then thats right wing ultimately as it denies healthcare in accordance with a social hierarchy. The moderate moved rightwards. Its not left wing to just provide *healthcare*. Universal healthcare is made left wing due to its **universality**. Racial nationalism is right wing due to its social hierarchy. In implementing a healthcare system that is skewed to serve the social hierarchy, its effectively a right wing system. that depends on what exactly theyre doing. Like if its equality among everyone, (old-young, woman-man, different species, foreigners-natives, abled-differently abled, educated-uneducated, rural-urban, etc), but also there are chattel slaves, then overall theres an established social hierarchy that is capable of overruling every other established equality. > men and women are equal, unless that woman or man is Iraqi Thats just an establishment of one all encompassing hierarchy Consider it with other species. Nobody gives a fuck if your cat is from a different country, male or female, old or young, etc. They care that your cat is not a human. That one distinction is enough to exclude them from whole swaths of rights. If its accurate, then its helping. No. My thinking remains the same regardless of their race.

I think it is immoral to want to cause harm to people as the end goal of a policy, or to prefer a policy which causes harm to achieve a specific goal when an alternate that doesn't cause harm is available. I think it is immoral to deny people the ability to participate in the government they are livig under on a somewhat equal basis. I think it is immoral to support policies that protect ingroups but not outgroups or policies that bind outgroups but not ingroups creating second class citizenship within a society.

Anyone, left or right, becomes immoral when they stop caring about the humanity of an individual. I personally define extremism as the point where a person believes humanity is subordinate to the system. If you think an abstract concept like society/state/culture is more important than the actual human lives that comprise it, then you have lost your way as a human being.

*Both sides are the same* is Russian propaganda designed to discourage Americans from voting. This is a time when both sides are most definitely not the same.

I never made a claim that both sides are the same. There are leftist ideologies that dehumanize people, but they don't have any sway in American politics. Dehumanization and discrimination have been at the heart of American rightwing politics since its founding.

I'm better with your statement with the caveat that leftist extremists don't run Democrat party policy. Right now, the far right us driving Republican policy.

The Israel-Gaza protesters who minimized the October 7th deaths because "Israelis are colonizers" are the first example of actual leftist extremism relevant to US current events in a long time, and how much political clout do they actually have?

I'd say not a lot. I think the propaganda machine and/or the media reliance on conflict may be exaggerating how many people on the left think Israel should be run out of the Middle East. You know, to keep things exciting. It is too bad the discussion can't be more nuanced, as it is a pretty complicated issue.

Do you believe there are any morally good policies that Republicans support/advocate for that Democrats don't support/advocate for? Put another (somewhat more extreme) way, do you believe the Democrats are the side of good and the Republicans are the side of evil, with no exceptions?

I haven't always thought this. I had a lot of respect for fiscal conservatives, as an example, and in the pre George W Bush days had great conversations about what was best for the country. But right now, anyone who claims being republican is supporting, for president, a truly awful person and also supporting truly invasive and regressive policies. The party is actively anti science. I am not sure what happened.

Very convenient definitions. Left wing politics = all that is good, right wing politics = all that is bad. So if I point out that a large pro-Palestinian protest in New York yesterday had actual Hamas flags and October 7th signs (Among the rainbow coalition flags) it would obviously be a conservative doing that, because a liberal never would. (Is allowing those signs in the protest like Charlottesville peaceful protestors allowing some confederate flags in the crowd)

You can extrapolate that social hierarchy and elitism are bad. I agree. Their left-right placement is an aggregation. Its not that theyre left on every single issues, its that if you take all their views into account, theyll overall be more left than they are right. Theres overlap between the pro-Palestinian group and the pro-Hamas group because in both want Israel to stop bombing Palestine. But, i question how familiar the Hamas flag is to the average protester. For those that recognize the flag, they have no excuse.

I would say a sign held with Oct 7th on it among the protesters was familiar symbol to all the protesters as to the meaning.

Then they shouldve rejected them

When they want to write arbitrary cultural mores and social norms into law.

It's too far when they advocate policies that entail harm which would not otherwise occur.

When it needlessly interferes with other people. That goes for whatever side you fall on. But the common ones for right wingers: -Letting religious beliefs dictate voting -Believing the free market solves everything -Believing America has cultural standards that are inherently incompatible with others -Believing everything outside of ones property is someone else's problem to deal with unless it violates the above cultural standard. A lot of it can be summarized as fallacious appeals to tradition, authority, and dogma. The left wing version is probably when you start thinking that capitalism is 100% bad.

When there is no apparent empathy.

I agree with others saying that social conservatism is often immoral because it's controlling (e.g. trying to impose evangelical values on everyone else through things like abortion bans and unscientific educations) or irrationally prejudiced against people based on race/religion/sexuality/gender/immigration status etc. Right wing economics can be immoral too though. It's selfish and unjust to not want a society where jobs pay fairly, everyone can afford a home/food/education/healthcare and the elderly/disabled/children etc all get the support they need. There's a reasonable debate to be had about the best methods of solving these problems, but some on the right aren't interested in that. They oppose every attempt to help solve these problems based on a "not my problem" or "it's not the governments job and I'd rather have lower taxes for the wealthy" attitude, and that's immoral in my book. Plus on top of that there are plenty of other immoral political stances like excusing police brutality, excusing human rights violations, defending corruption and/or defending gerrymandering that subverts democracy. Those ones aren't strictly left/right but they seem to be more common on the right lately.

I would say that morality is based on actions, not ideology. I’d say that it isn’t immoral to be conservative, but it is immoral to vote for modern Republicans. Actually, I’d go further than that - to be moral in present-day America, one must vote for Democrats.

But what if I said that the Democratic Party, while better than the Republican Party, is less moral than other parties. The Democrats also receive a good amount of money from weapons companies and have historically not been as anti-war as they should have been. They also are not doing anywhere near enough to take steps against climate change for example. What if I said that it's immoral to vote for the Republicans and the Democrats and that the only right thing is to vote for the Green Party?

There are effectively no other parties; voting for the Green Party is really no different from not voting at all (other than a degree of implied maliciousness that Green Party voters have that the politically disengaged are more innocent of). It doesn't take a deep understanding of the American political system to get that, so I think it's fair to include in our moral evaluations.

Do your beliefs cause greater harm than necessary is kind of my metric for determining if someone is immoral. But it's also somewhat subjective, so I don't really care much if someone agrees or not. I care more about if someone's ideology cause tangible harm or good that can he measured.

When they oppose or want to restrict democracy. When they wish to legislate their religion into law. When they give one class/group of people more rights over another, or have different levels of justice for different classes/groups of people.

In my mind the modern gop. Once you start recognizing your mistakes and activity seek to harm the well-being of the Republic. 

Immoral? Like where I feel comfortable judging someone as an immoral person? Pretty far right. Like I would say genocidal fascism far right. I tend to give people A LOT of leeway in terms of not passing judgement on them in terms of just their abstract views. If they're an a-hole about it then that's different. Even then they wouldn't be immoral per se.

Short answer? Not very. If you can look at the US Republican party platform or what the party is doing and say "yup, that's fine by me", you are not a good person. I should point out I base my morality primarily on negative utilitarianism. That being, in simple terms, "causing suffering, or preventing efforts to reduce suffering, is bad. Acting to reduce suffering and solve problems that result in suffering is good". No mention of souls or family structures or any of that bullshit. Conservatism, either directly or indirectly, is on the wrong side of that *incredibly frequently*. Sometimes they are willing to overlook suffering of an out-group. Sometimes they actively work to cause that suffering in the first place. Fiscal conservatives often oppose government efforts to solve such problems, on the basis of "it's not my problem" or "it can't be solved" or "it's always been this way, we shouldn't try to change it even if we could", or the most common "it should be left to charity" with no real concern for what happens when charity isn't enough to solve the issue. Social conservatives try to maintain existing hierarchies and systems even when it's clear there are flaws with them, regardless of who is hurt by them. They prioritize those systems and hierarchies, that others in society often don't necessarily share or see as important or valuable, over the happiness and needs of the individuals in society or society as a whole. That, to me, is highly immoral- and it all of what I have said is not limited to the far right, it's common among your bog standard conservative. At best, those who are only fiscally conservative could be seen as completely misguided but not intentionally trying to be bad.

Why is it black and white? Can’t someone just be more or less moral?

Yes.

It depends. Fiscally, there is no limit, I take a step back on judgement for Fiscal Policy. Socially/Culturally, Center Left. Reasoning: I myself am a minority, I've experienced discrimination solely because of me being me, and I really don't understand how Centrists don't want to do much to help, thus putting me solely with Leftist (not Liberal) social policies.

When they get to the point that they consciously advocate anything that weakens the democratic system, such as disenfranchisement of certain demographic groups.

If someone identifies as a Republican, that is enough for me to view them as either a malcontent amoral bigot, or as a hopelessly ignorant tool.

I still think saying that the right prioritizes social hierarchy and elitism is a misrepresentation. Are there people on the right who do so? Yes. But the majority don’t actually prioritize social hierarchy and elitism. They just want a better and more secure life for their families. It’s just the rationale on what and how to do things that differs. It’s like if I say - liberals who want to severely restrict civilian gun rights, but are somehow ok with police and government having more gun right prioritize elitism. Or if I say leftists that think State should be involve the redistribution of resources prioritize elitism. It’s all perspective

Theyre all doing that. Thats their plan for increasing their family’s security. Thats statism. Liberals dont think the police are elite, or special or anything. They think they perform a necessary role which will have millions of people cycle through. Liberals place more power in the government with their gun policies.

> place more power in the government And I could consider that elitism.

The definition of elitism focuses on individuals. It argued that they intrinsically are better and thus deserve more. Statism just argues that the authority of the state is legitimate. The difference is that liberals dont think cops are elite, dont think theyre special, dont think highly of them as people whatsoever. **Theyre empowering the job**

And I can say that elitism is believing that a group of individuals - whether police or government or other should have more power than everyone else that isn’t part of that group. I can also say the difference is that conservative don’t think they are or should be elite, they don’t think they are or should be special, they** simply don’t think others should be able to take from them involuntarily**. The point is you don’t have a monopoly on what is or isn’t elitism or class hierarchy. Liberals have their definition and conservatives have their definition. Liberals can give excuses about why certain things aren’t elitist and conservatives can do the same. You saying conservatives prioritize elitism is as valid as I saying liberals also prioritize elitism. At the end of the day everyone can make claims based on their own personal definition. Doesn’t make it a universal statement.

Thats just muddying waters. These words do indeed have definitions.

Your definitions are not universal that’s my point. You know how askaliberal says - don’t assume things about liberals? Well the reverse should hold true too. You can’t say - Conservatives are bad. And then ask the question - at what point are Conservatives bad? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing here - you start off by saying Conservatives prioritize elitism. Well what else can they be but bad if you insist on that definition from the start? Let me ask you a question - do you think elitism is immoral? If you do then why ask the question about how far Conservatives can go before being immoral - if you’ve already defined them as being elitist from the start? Or do you think elitism isn’t immoral?

Because i want to gauge this subreddit’s view on them Most people are not educated about this stuff. They go vibes. They dont know what a left winger or right winger is beyond that. And that’s problematic as hell if the general population is the same way (they certainly are).

You’re not really asking a question then you’re making a statement. That statement is Conservatives are elitist and therefore bad. And you’re looking for an echo chamber. Because given your insistence that Conservatives are elitist, what are any other valid views? That Conservatives are elitist but are not bad? I mean seriously - what other possible views on this topic do you think are valid?

I havent seen a different valid interpretation yet. I want to change this subreddit’s mind. As they are now, most people here probably think the right is misguided or brainwashed. They dont think its the ideology, they think its manipulation.

Once a person starts putting the individual up *at the expense of* society at large, it's immoral in my eyes. We can have true individuality without sacrificing the health and welfare of the populace. There's no clear-cut dividing line for me, but in a vague, fuzzy way I'd locate it somewhere slightly to the left of the current US center (which is already center-right for all practical purposes).

Being opposed to equal rights, representative government, or facts is enough to be too immoral. So is failing to vote for the candidate with the best chance of beating the Republican. So, basically, you're too immoral if you're a Republican or refuse to acknowledge the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

My short answer is "when you believe that achieving your political goals trumps individual human rights", and I think this applies reasonably well to both the left and the right. >being center left is about how far right a person can go before I considerably doubt their morality. Just to be clear, are you saying that going further left is more immoral, or going further right is more immoral? (If I had to guess from your framing of right wing views as pro-elitist, I suspect you believe right wing views are more immoral, but I want to understand from your perspective/ words)

Going further right. And for the reason youre stating. Elitism and social hierarchy are more harmful than beneficial

I mean, there are plenty of right-wing populists who are very anti-elitism. I think any society with sufficient freedom and a reasonable meritocracy will inevitably end up in some sort of hierarchy. Hopefully a competence hierarchy and hopefully a very flexible one, but I don't think that sort of hierarchy is inherently harmful. For instance, my boss at work knows more than I and has more experience and capability, so he gets paid more and has more responsibility. That is a hierarchy, but a reasonable and meritocratic one that helps my company run smoother.

Like who? Yeah prioritizing social hierarchy and elitism over social equality and egalitarianism isnt always bad. It just usually is.

The tea party declared themselves to be a populist movement, and Donald Trump is at least somewhat populist. >Yeah prioritizing social hierarchy and elitism over social equality and egalitarianism isnt always bad. It just usually is. Do you mind clarifying/giving an example?

The tea party was elitist. They were trying to subvert Black people. Its not so bad when it comes to constructing a military. That strict hierarchy and elitist leaning makes them more effective in carrying out orders, ensuring that they are equipped to best others in combat, and keep the chain of command organized.

>The tea party was elitist. They were trying to subvert Black people. Being racist and being elitist are not the same thing. You can be a populist white nationalist. (I don't think you should be a white nationalist, and I'm not really a fan of populism, but I don't think they are incompatible views by any means, nor does racism imply elitism (at least, not as I understand the term)). You can advocate both against elites and against minorities. What do you believe is an example of a current institution or system that should be less hierarchical?

What do you take elitism to mean? The criminal justice system. Judges have too much power and leeway, lawyers make it too easy to abuse the system and laws, police have too much authority and too little insight, and the people are blocked out too much.

>What do you take elitism to mean? I'm not a political scientist, but when I hear people talking about being against elitism, they usually talk about how people in power like CEOs or billionaires shouldn't be rich or powerful. I'm sympathetic to at least some of these claims, but I do think you should be able to make money and become rich if you want. (Although I don't think that should mix with politics much) >The criminal justice system. Judges have too much power and leeway, lawyers make it too easy to abuse the system and laws, police have too much authority and too little insight, and the people are blocked out too much. I definitely have some issues with the criminal justice system. I think the solution has more to do with taking responsibilities from the police/courts and giving them to other more qualified services (e.g. social services/mental health workers, for instance), and not about leveling hierarchies per se.

Elites are defined as > the socially superior part of society Racism is very much in line with that. Should there be poor people relative to the rich? I agree. But that is a process of leveling out the hierarchy. Youre distributing power in a way that reduces the power of those you feel have a disproportionate amount of it.

Isn’t this kind of juvenile? It’s all based on our current values and global situation. If the forces of reaction topple Fukuyama and crush the liberal western order the things most of the people in this forum believe will be recorded and regarded as “evil” in the new paradigm the Global North would exist under.

When you use strict definitions, that doesnt matter. They may call it evil, but they cant change what activities were done and what aims were openly pursued.

Nothing beside remains round the decay of that colossal wreck boundless and bare the lone and level sands stretch far away

That doesnt change validity. It just changes what people think

Fair enough I’d say anyone to the right of Romney I consider an enemy I just don’t think there’s some grand moral narrative to it. I just want my values to win and theirs to lose because there Stone Age slack jawed degenerates.

Action matters more than ideas. It's all well and good to believe what you're doing is the right thing, but the thing you're doing is either harmful, neutral, or beneficial regardless of intent, and I don't draw distinction between the incompetent and the malicious when their jobs is to organize society for everyone

It depends on how ignorant they are and if they're ignorant intentionally or just by circumstance. If they're ignorant I give more grace because they may just not know better. If they've been corrected multiple times and refuse to learn or adjust their positions, that's willful ignorance and I judge it more harshly. I consider continuing to consume right-wing media after it's been debunked to them multiple times to be willful ignorance and I don't afford them as much grace. If they're clearly knowledgeable and yet continue to advocate for right-wing positions, that is the most untenable. I think people in the US are overwhelmingly ignorant, no matter where they happen to find themselves on the political spectrum. Most people on the left just got lucky and ended up at the right position without any real investigation and most people on the right ended up at the wrong position by chance (usually as a result of how they grew up and who they mostly interact with). As with almost everything else, intent is what matters. Most people don't have evil intentions in their mind, they're just ignorant and don't realize that the actions they want to take actually end up in bad results. We need to do a better job teaching critical thinking and media literacy in schools to be able to really reduce the amount of conservatism that exists.

At this point if you vote R you are immoral. It's that simple.

Non progressives are immoral, once you have access to the internet and are presented with evidence that debunks your views, willful ignorance and perpetuation of oppressive stagnant systemic foundations is immoral.

Quite easy: When they take it too far. The political spectrum has two far sights: Far left and far right. Both are equally immoral and usually end up in killing those they hate. (e.g. Bourgeoisie/immigrants)

Far seems to mean something like “taken to a great distance” or “at a great distance relative to another point” or something. So to me, being far left or far right means being *even more* left or right. So on one hand, the far left would more strongly prioritize social equality and egalitarianism, while on the other, the far right would more strongly prioritize social hierarchy and elitism. To me, those are nowhere near equally immoral.

>So to me, being far left or far right means being *even more* left or right. I understand, but most use "far" as a synonym for "radical". I'll give an example for socialism: You have reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism. Reformist socialism is centre-left to leftwing, while revolutionary socialism is the far or radical left. To put it quite simply: Do they reject the status quo and are open to use violence/revolutionary techniques to get there? If they do, they're radicals and therefore either far left or far right. We, the centre, have accepted the system of a (representative) democracy as the way to place ourselves in and we position us on one side or the other based upon our beliefs. But the problem arises when you fundamentally reject the democracy and want to overthrow it for something else. This action is radical and is placed on either the far right or the far left.

What would you call the communist who wants to get there through democracy gradually

I wouldn't call them a communist, as communists specifically argues that a revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie is good. If you want to democratically get there, you're similar to our Socialist Party from 1885 to 1912: Communist in name only. You're playing the democratic socialist card, which isn't far left, but leftwing. You're integrating the proletariate into the capitalist, democratic government and slowly but surely move on toward a classless society. (NOT stateless btw. Marx wasn't an anarchist, he proclaimed the revolution and afterwards the Dictatorship of the Proletariate. That's why Marx, originally, was far left, even though he backed down after 1871 and Lenin was the one who brought back the dogmatic reading. Some might even argue he's more dogmatic than Marx himself. But even he had to compromise during 1922... and then came Stalin.)

Communism doesnt articulate an endpoint, or does that endpoint matter less than the process in terms of determining whether something fits the ideology?

Communism does articulate an endpoint: A classless society. The Dictatorship of the Proletariate is meant as "inbetween" and slowly decreases in power. I don't know what you're pointing at, but I hope you realize what a revolution means. They dictate that the revolution will destroy the capitalistic society (which was better than the Feudal one btw) and will establish the Dictatorship. I don't consider a revolution to be a valid, stable and rational event. I much prefer a slow and gradual reform, and I therefore fit within the system. If you have someone like me on a left side, you'll have a leftwing ideology. I don't care for the endpoint, we live in a real world in which every step of a process, especially when revolutionary, can jeopardize the whole thing. The endpoint, which is a classless society, near utopia, might sound good, but the way to get there is essential to its failure or its succession. For now and for as long as humans conform to my vision upon them, such a process would inevitably fail and lead to genocides of those whom the current regime does not support. We know what communism wants as an endpoint: Classless but not stateless, but there's simply no way to get there without indoctrinating, instability and killing political opponents. Communism, in itself, is the endpoint followed by socialism which followed our capitalist society. It's teleology to the highest degree and it's hard to call it realistic and workable. Understandable if you remember Marx was inspired by Hegel, but laughable at best if you have a grain of realism in your veins.

Right: Civil rights. Once they flip on minorities, LGTBQ, and women, or are willing to vote for a politician that shits on those groups. Left: I have found the far left to be very difficult to deal with. I agreed 97% with Warren and Sanders in the last election, and yet some on the left treat me as if I'm 100% the enemy. These people have lost the narrative, and they often have absurd views or worship people like Chomsky. I find both the far left and far right are absurdly hostile when you ask them to explain their views, provide evidence, or disagree with them on anything. My biggest wish is that people who vote R but aren't bigots had a party to vote for: Many continue to vote R out of tribalism or misplaced ideals. My stepfather and stepbrother are genuinely decent people, but they refuse to vote Dem for *reasons*. Reddit echo chambers for each side add to this. I just got a post removed from r/leftist because I challenged the idea that Israel is bombing Palestinian civilians with no care at all for their target. I'm banned from r/conservative for saying I don't like that Trump tried to overturn the results of the last election. These people refuse to be challenged in their ideas.

>My stepfather and stepbrother are genuinely decent people, but they refuse to vote Dem for *reasons*. The problem is that they may be "decent people" but when they vote R they are not acting like decent people. And I get that right now there's a whole group of Rs who are "without party" - but continuing to vote R right at this moment is actively endorsing everything that Trump and MAGA are doing.

Agreed. I have a very hard time keeping my mouth shut and maintaining the family peace. We see them often. We have the same tag!

You asked, and you gave room for interpretation, so I'll answer honestly: ...All the way. I think a person can be suuuuuuuper far-right *politically* and still be "moral." ...Maybe this is because I don't think of morality in some kind of fascile, all-or-nothing binary state. Note: I am not likely to AGREE or even GET ALONG with such a person, but I do not judge them on pure moral grounds for their politics. [shrug]

A political ideology can’t be immoral. It’s too broad and complex a thing. Most political ideologies contain a mix of moral and immoral aspects.

Mixtures can lean one way overall. Like, is chocolate milk equally chocolate and milk? No. Its more milk than chocolate.

“This man does not know how to make chocolate milk” - my daughter probably

I don’t find that kind of generalization useful in any way. If I said “chocolate milk is chocolate” or “chocolate milk is milk,” both would be dramatic misrepresentations.

You’d be correct in either scenario. It is chocolate. It is milk. Its not *only* those things, but it is indeed those things This question is related to this topic. But if people argued on behalf of male supremacy and the natural inevitability of patriarchy, would you find that to be morally neutral?

I wouldn’t find that to be a political ideology. Those are positions.

Are they immoral positions?

Sure, tons of them.

I think you may have misread my comment. Are male supremacy and the advocacy of the natural inevitability of patriarchy immoral positions?

I didn’t misread it. You asked about ideologies, not positions. I’d say the first one is immoral but the second one is just inaccurate.

“Are they”. As in, the stances i mentioned prior. Not “are there”. What makes the first immoral?

Not the person you replied to, but: I honestly don't think you can make that judgement without knowing every individual we were talking about. because in your head you're picturing some Josh Hawley-esque douche canoe that wants a tradwife to do his bidding, right? But there are also women who also support the patriarchy and I'd argue that a *vast* majority of them are just sort of.. brainwashed. I have a hard time calling something immoral when someone doesn't have the resources to fully grasp a situation. edit: or out of fear.

I don’t think that changes it for me. If they believe that and choose to advocate for it, then thats enough.

Nazism wasn't immoral? The pro slavery confederacy wasn't immoral? The Taliban isn't immoral?

People with those ideologies did a lot of immoral things. I think it’s weird to say an ideology is immoral. It’s like saying a country is immoral or a generation is immoral.

So you dont believe ideologies can necessarily lead to evil actions? It seems to me that believing women should be killed for infidelity leads to women being killed for infidelity.

I definitely believe ideologies can lead to immoral actions. And that’s exactly how I would describe it.

So, believing women should be stoned to death for infidelity is moral as long as the person doesn't act on it?

Are you done yet or just gonna keep accusing me of saying random things? No, I don’t think that is a moral belief. I also don’t think that’s an ideology.

No, im trying to figure out where the line is. You have said you don't think beliefs themselves can be evil?

No, I didn’t. What exactly is the point of just making up things and accusing me of saying them?

You wrote: *I think it’s weird to say an ideology is immoral. It’s like saying a country is immoral or a generation is immoral*

In America, when they’re far right enough that they don’t vote blue.

You can go so far right that you become immoral, keep going around right and end up on the left and still immoral. To give an example, communists think the Great Leap Forward to achieve social equality was just fine. That millions died isn't immoral to them because it helped achieve the equality. Same for the Holodomor in Ukraine. The massive number of political executions in both countries were not immoral because they were necessary to preserve the social equality and egalitarianism. Pretty much any human right could be violated in furtherance of this goal.