The political side that is the "correct" side.

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't answer the question because most politics don't have much to do with morals if you want to be logical.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech is a huge part of both liberalism and morality from the left's perspective. And purity and duty are a huge part of both authoritarianism and morality from the right's perspective.

Economic issues are less about morality than social issues. But even they are full of moral ideas. Capitalism contains the idea that every individual has the right to make something of themselves, for example, and socialism contains the idea that sharing the wealth is a good thing, for example.

Morality and politics are two different issues... but they definitely overlap.

[Shell B]

I can't answer the question because most politics don't have much to do with morals if you want to be logical.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech is a huge part of both liberalism and morality from the left's perspective. And purity and duty are a huge part of both authoritarianism and morality from the right's perspective.

Economic issues are less about morality than social issues. But even they are full of moral ideas. Capitalism contains the idea that every individual has the right to make something of themselves, for example, and socialism contains the idea that sharing the wealth is a good thing, for example.

Morality and politics are two different issues... but they definitely overlap.

And you think "most" of politics is based on those few ideas? Most of politics is deciding how much money to spend on a new school or whether or not a state can afford to re-do its highways. Even federal-level politics is humdrum stuff for the most part.

[Edwardo Piet]

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech is a huge part of both liberalism and morality from the left's perspective. And purity and duty are a huge part of both authoritarianism and morality from the right's perspective.

Economic issues are less about morality than social issues. But even they are full of moral ideas. Capitalism contains the idea that every individual has the right to make something of themselves, for example, and socialism contains the idea that sharing the wealth is a good thing, for example.

Morality and politics are two different issues... but they definitely overlap.

And you think "most" of politics is based on those few ideas? Most of politics is deciding how much money to spend on a new school or whether or not a state can afford to re-do its highways. Even federal-level politics is humdrum stuff for the most part.

Again, there's social issues and economic issues.

I didn't say most. I said even economic issues have some level of morality to them but I'm not really interested in economic issues. I've been focusing on social issues. Like I said, I'm as socially left as you can get but I don't know where I stand economically.

I think morality and social issues correlate largely. I think being socially liberal is very moral but being socially illiberal is very immoral.

[unsapien]

A bird needs both wings in order to fly,

and the most stable flight is when most of the weight is nearest the center.

[Shell B]

And you think "most" of politics is based on those few ideas? Most of politics is deciding how much money to spend on a new school or whether or not a state can afford to re-do its highways. Even federal-level politics is humdrum stuff for the most part.

Again, there's social issues and economic issues.

I didn't say most. I said even economic issues have some level of morality to them but I'm not really interested in economic issues. I've been focusing on social issues. Like I said, I'm as socially left as you can get but I don't know where I stand economically.

I think morality and social issues correlate largely. I think being socially liberal is very moral but being socially illiberal is very immoral.

No, I said most. You were replying to me saying most. What you answer the question based on  is up to you. I was replying about politics as a whole, not to politics as Hammy sees them.

[brewer]

I can't say specifically without context. C would come the closest to my position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm with Shell in that I'm pretty unconcerned with the overlap between politics and morality.  I'm not even overly concerned about political philosophy.  If government acts in such a way that it improves the lives of the people in governs, it is taking moral action.

A perfect example of this: As I mentioned in another thread, I just finished binge watching Ken Burns' documentary about the Roosevelts. In the Great Depression in the US, Herbert Hoover's administration did virtually nothing to ease the suffering of people out of work.  His political philosophy was that economies will regulate themselves, and government had no business interfering.  All well and good (as far as it goes), but when people are quite literally starving to death due to having no money, a government which does nothing is immoral.  Franklin Roosevelt came frighteningly close to becoming an autocrat, but he mobilized government to put as many people back to work and to feed as many of the hungry as was possible.  Whatever moral flaws people find in democratic socialism, Franklin was behaving morally.

Here endeth the lesson on Situational Ethics.

Boru

[Edwardo Piet]

No, I said most. You were replying to me saying most. What you answer the question based on  is up to you. I was replying about politics as a whole, not to politics as Hammy sees them.

Yes you said most but I didn't say most. I'm disagreeing with the idea that politics and morality aren't related.

True, you didn't say that they weren't entirely related. You said they weren't related much. I think that on the spectrum of how related the two are—especially on social issues—we just disagree on how related they are.

I only see politics as I see them

---

I'm with Shell in that I'm pretty unconcerned with the overlap between politics and morality.

But you do agree that they do overlap?

  I'm not even overly concerned about political philosophy.

Me either. I love philosophy to death... it's my favorite subject ever... but when it comes to philosophy political philosophy is the section of philosophy I am least interested in. I tend to only be interested in political philosophy and politics where it overlaps with morality. Which I do think is mostly on social issues. Liberty is a good and moral, thing, IMO. That's the main thing. Without a liberal society people suffer more than they do under a right-winged society. It's a spectrum though: Of course, a despotism or authoritarian society would cause the most harm of all. Or no society at all, total anarchy, which would be chaos. I guess you could say that I could be even further left wing than I am by being a total anarchist... but economically I am actually closer to centrist, I think, or at least not fully left. I'm not bothered with economics, to be honest. But I do recognize that economy and society is necessary.

But I guess my point is that liberty is a good thing but the opposite of liberty is not.

  If government acts in such a way that it improves the lives of the people in governs, it is taking moral action.

I agree. And I think what is common with the worst kind of governments is authoritarianism. An example being: The fact that Stalinism and Fascism are both far right socially even though they're opposites economically. They're both authoritarian. For me, the fact that the very worst kind of government is of the authoritarian kind whether it's an economically left or economically right authoritarianism speaks to the opposite: that socially left liberalism, or anti-authoriatianism, is a very good thing. We need a society and we need an economy... but certainty authoritarianism is a very destructive force regardless of the economics. And liberalism is very positive because it is in favor of liberty.

A perfect example of this: As I mentioned in another thread, I just finished binge watching Ken Burns' documentary about the Roosevelts. In the Great Depression in the US, Herbert Hoover's administration did virtually nothing to ease the suffering of people out of work.  His political philosophy was that economies will regulate themselves, and government had no business interfering.  All well and good (as far as it goes), but when people are quite literally starving to death due to having no money, a government which does nothing is immoral.

I agree. And this is why I am more centrist economically. Or rather, left but not as left. I am not sure where I stand economically to be honest: as I said, I'm not very interested in economics.

But yes, both society and economy is necessary. I'm more interested in social issues and I don't think being right wing on social issues is a good thing at all.

I think it's social issues that are most relevant to morality.

  Franklin Roosevelt came frighteningly close to becoming an autocrat, but he mobilized government to put as many people back to work and to feed as many of the hungry as was possible.  Whatever moral flaws people find in democratic socialism, Franklin was behaving morally.

Here endeth the lesson on Situational Ethics.

Boru

And a good lesson it is. I enjoyed your post

Indeed, as you explain, economy can be relevant to morality as well. As I said it could as well but... I myself don't really have any examples as I'm not very interested in the economy. And yet even *I* knew Brexit was a terrible idea economically. Because somehow I trust economic experts over a bunch of immigrant haters with an agenda. Although I was already extremely anti-Brexit because I already found it disagreeable on social issues, of course.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

A bird needs both wings in order to fly,

and the most stable flight is when most of the weight is nearest the center.

+2 for centrism.

[Edwardo Piet]

Economic centre? Social centre? Or both?