The political side that is the "correct" side.

[Catholic_Lady]

Poll Question:

Which side of the political spectrum holds the more morally correct set of values? 

My answer is C. For example, I am against abortion (a right leaning value) but also against the death penalty (a left leaning value).

[Tiberius]

No morals are “correct” but within the context of my own moral framework, “C” is the answer I’d choose.

[Angrboda]

Values themselves are neither morally correct nor incorrect, so your question doesn't seem to make sense. I tend to follow the work of Jonathan Haidt who theorizes that both the morals and politics of the left and the right are founded on the same themes, they just place different emphasis on the varying themes (see graph below). Beyond that is the question of whether the policies of the left and the right are themselves correct. That tends to come down to a question of whether or not the goals of the policy are worthwhile and the policy itself is an effective means of reaching that goal. A lot of the discussion of the latter simply rests on speculation, and the former tends to rely on assumptions that aren't shared, so it tends to be less a disagreement about values and more one of facts. I'm inclined to believe the right is less ethical than the left, often misrepresenting facts toward the achievement of their goals, but that's a perception I freely admit I have no hard evidence for.



From Why We Disagree on Moral Issues

[Jackalope]

@Jorm


It seems to me these days that a significant number of conservatives only pay lip service to purity...otherwise the current occupant of the WH wouldn't have won the nomination. He's anything but and you'd have to be willfully blind and deaf to not know that. It certainly didn't start there but it became blatantly apparent at that point.

ETA: Other than that, I think Haidt has it largely correct.

[Minimalist]

Pretty damned hard to find any morality on the right in the Age of the WLB.

[Mystic]

I know, I'm not supposed to be back. Let's make today an exception.

I think a moral followed without proof whether true or not, is just as bad.  And I think accepting a proof without honest reflection and perception is just as bad.

If you keep holding on to intuition, what happens when your intuition is being hit by inceptions, and going wrong everywhere else?

And if we rely on our own reasoning, what makes us think others are wrong but we are right, while everyone thinks that about themselves.

This is true with every moral, even the most desire ones for us a species for our survival.

Unfortunately, all this is a moral in itself, and I can't prove any of it.

Rather there is a proof and a proof that connects us somehow and makes us know, and if we keep running away from it are whole lives like I have been, we are set for a rude awakening.

Using the proof for our selfish motives and associating goodness with evil, and equating truth with falsehood, is the state of the majority, and although not fully comprehensively dark evil, is enough of shit mixed with holy water, to be disgusting and evil.

To answer your question with all this,  to assert any view point without proof is the position of both left and right, and none of them are better, be their position is right or not, they all mix garbage with treasures, and filth with holy sustenance, and ignorance with knowledge. And all the cherry pickers do the same.

The best way out of confusion is to realize you are confused.  People  following their desires or idol desires, over that of truth that can only be known by honest reflection through insight through the rational eyes of love,  it doesn't matter if their view points correspond to reality of what God commands inwardly and outwardly, because without proof, it's on the same level.

And I don't believe countries are built on truth but illusion of false authority to start with, and the power structure we are on even if would implement 99.9% helpful laws, based on the falsehood it is on, is highly volatile and can lead to the most severest of consequences when built on shaky falsehood grounds.

[Edwardo Piet]

Left all the way for social issues. I don't give a crap about authority, ingroup and purity. Those are all amoral issues as far as I'm concerened.

I'm not even that fussed with fairness (depending on how you define fairness). Fairness is great so long as you understand, to quote Steven Pinker: "Fairness is not the same as sameness. When Thomas Jefferson said that all men are created equally he did not mean that all men are clones."

Ultimately harm is what matters as far as I'm concerned. Or rather, reduction of harm. Harmful=bad. Harm is only justified when in the long run it reduces even more harm.

I'm far left socially because as far as I am concerned anyone should be allowed to do or say what they like as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others. And anyone should be able to desire whatever they like so long as they don't thwart the desires of others, or make others suffer, basically. In some situations it is necessary... but again, only when the only possible alternative is even more harmful.

My biggest problem with the SJW type of 'Left' is that they're not actually left. They're very authoritarian. They're all about censorship and controlling language. That's not left at all. It's reactionry politics. There's a very awesome speech on that matter 5 minutes into the following debate. Please go to exactly 5 minutes in:





I love this speech to death. That sums up my view on how you can't be too far left socially.

[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.

[notimportant1234]

Left or right is a philosophical difference, problems occue when one of the sides doesn't follow facts.

[The Industrial Atheist]

For me the left in the US isn't far Left enough. The farthest Left guys we have that are viable politicians would be a normal politician, maybe a centrist in Europe.
So in my book the right here is in conflict with what I believe to be correct, and left is less wrong.

TBH it would be very interesting, I think, if corporate/special interest money were taken out of the equation.