• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does your morality and ethics define your political beliefs?

Bubuloo

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
I have never attended a human rights march, I just treat all humans with dignity and respect. Be the change you want to see in the world, don't politicize it. Marching is about making you feel good about you it is not about practicing what you preach.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have never attended a human rights march, I just treat all humans with dignity and respect. Be the change you want to see in the world, don't politicize it. Marching is about making you feel good about you it is not about practicing what you preach.
It can be about making a statement and owning your convictions.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
I do not think anybody with a conscience is against helping those that cannot help themselves. I am against enabling those that are actually capable from helping themselves, at the rest of our expense.

Does nothing of consequence for those who are capable but unmotivated, hurts them ultimately, and redistributes from those that have earned to those who have not. Not a good message for any concerned. In the meantime, since it is taken from those earning not by their volunteering it, and as they, we, often only have so much to give, there is promoted an unwillingness to give in other areas where it may actually be benefit. Known as trade offs and opportunity costs in economics.

Of course racism and fascism should be guarded against. But one needs to define those, not just use the terms to be thrown around as blunt instruments to get one's way. You can be anti-discrimination, but in effect when you choose one thing over another, that is discrimination. We do it all the time and it is not, necessarily, a bad thing... in fact can be a good thing.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
Yes, but I also believe that it is possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater economically speaking. That people have need should not cause government to engage in policies that are economically harmful in the long-term for future generations. While painful, I believe that austerity now will greatly benefit the UK 10-15 years from now. On the flip side, the refusal of the United States to engage in meaningful austerity piling on the mother of all welfare programs during a very soft economy will be our undoing. Making people two generations from now pay for things we wasted today will cause undue hardship on them and prevent them from being able to do anything other than pile even more debt on those who follow them. We are in an economic death spiral because of too much good intentions.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,855
Reaction score
33,972
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes.

My mortality is only physical; I believe that everyone lives forever through the influece they have on others and the earth.

My ethics are founded in biodiversity, ecocentrism. Democracy represents diversity in leadership and the solving of multifaceted social problems through as many perspectives as possible. Additionally, democracy promotes ecologic health because those directly affected by environmental degradation have a voice in its authority. Without that, those at the top generally allow those at the bottom to suffer without concern for long-term environmental impacts.

See my signature, below.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They don't define them, but they do influence them heavily. I say they don't define them because I have moral positions that I don't translate to political positions because I don't believe in forcing people to abide by my morality just because I think my way is better.

However, my moral and ethical beliefs certainly influence my political beliefs. Also, sometimes my moral positions don't influence my political positions so much as they complement them. In any case, when it comes to things like education, welfare, tax rates, SSM, et al., I have strong moral opinions about all of them and so, when I see people who have different ideas about them that are not morally permissible, I feel an extreme amount of disdain for them. For instance, if someone advocates an education policy that will maintain racial disparities in education, I feel extremely disgusted by them because it is not only a political, but a moral issue for me.

On another note, I find that having my political positions so closely tied to my moral positions keeps me honest because it means that I am more tied to ideals than I am to any party or individual.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Marching is about making you feel good about you it is not about practicing what you preach.
Bull****. Such public shows of solidarity accomplish a lot when it comes to social change. It shows people who aren't sure if they should speak out, that it's okay to do so. It shows people who believe something, but don't have anywhere to express it, that there are others working for the same thing. Even further, it shows public officials that there is pushback which forces them to consider their critics. Such effects of marching were plainly evident in the Civil Rights movement. Those demonstrations were essential.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I have never attended a human rights march, I just treat all humans with dignity and respect. Be the change you want to see in the world, don't politicize it. Marching is about making you feel good about you it is not about practicing what you preach.
It's about actually making pressure for change.

If one was against slavery, simply not having slaves was not enough, one had to fight AGAINST the institution of slavery.

Human rights is political, it always has been. The problem with Aparteid wasn't that whites were simply not friendly, it was the law and the institutions.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
BTW, its IMPOSSIBLE to not have your political beliefs defined by your ethics, since your ethics are the ground for what political goals or end's one has.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Bull****. Such public shows of solidarity accomplish a lot when it comes to social change. It shows people who aren't sure if they should speak out, that it's okay to do so. It shows people who believe something, but don't have anywhere to express it, that there are others working for the same thing. Even further, it shows public officials that there is pushback which forces them to consider their critics. Such effects of marching were plainly evident in the Civil Rights movement. Those demonstrations were essential.
Public shows of solidarity make you feel all warm and fuzzy but accomplish nothing but that. You are like the so called Christian that goes to Church every Sunday then spends the rest of the week screwing people.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's about actually making pressure for change.

If one was against slavery, simply not having slaves was not enough, one had to fight AGAINST the institution of slavery.

Human rights is political, it always has been. The problem with Aparteid wasn't that whites were simply not friendly, it was the law and the institutions.
Marching didn't end slavery, a long brutal war did.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Marching didn't end slavery, a long brutal war did.
Or apartheid and segregation .... My point stands. The point I was making is social crimes and sins require social action.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
13,453
Reaction score
7,218
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
How can someone's ethical philosophy not inform their political philosophy?

What does "helping people who cannot help themselves" really mean. That is such a broad statement as to be meaningless. I believe in helping people. But that doesn't mean I approve of just giving them money or food.

I'm against racism as well. Most people are. But not at the expense of freedom of speech.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
13,453
Reaction score
7,218
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Marching didn't end slavery, a long brutal war did.
Before you can have a long brutal war to end some evil you first have to convince a lot of people, both citizenry and elected officials, that eradicating the evil is worth the cost of the long brutal war. That's were the pen (as in "the pen is mightier than the sword") comes in.

I generally agree that most protest marches today - at least here in the U.S. - are pretty worthless other than to delude people into thinking they're doing something useful and make them feel good about themselves.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not think anybody with a conscience is against helping those that cannot help themselves. I am against enabling those that are actually capable from helping themselves, at the rest of our expense.

Does nothing of consequence for those who are capable but unmotivated, hurts them ultimately, and redistributes from those that have earned to those who have not. Not a good message for any concerned. In the meantime, since it is taken from those earning not by their volunteering it, and as they, we, often only have so much to give, there is promoted an unwillingness to give in other areas where it may actually be benefit. Known as trade offs and opportunity costs in economics.
Not sure if reincarnation of old threads is frowned upon, but...here goes...

I partially agree with you. Now before I say what I'm going to say, let me point out that it applies to those that are physically and mentally capable. I would make exceptions (though not necessarily limited to) for students, those in the military or those that volunteer for some type of civil service. The more difficult question is what do about parents, especially mothers. A system that incentivizes people for having children in order to get benefits has issues, but a system that punishes children for the actions of their parents isn't optimal either. So the question is, does society have a right to impose on a person's freedom if they are provided benefits (presumably because they cannot, or will not find work) because they have children? I'm inclined to say yes, but admit I'm riding a fence and haven't fully embraced a justification either way. In the end, I think children of the poor are entitled to a minimum level of opportunity. I say minimum because I know the CEO that makes $12 million a year can provide for his children in ways that the state cannot, so I've avoided saying the "same level of opportunity", as that wouldn't be realistic.

I think capable people should be put to a choice. Contribute to society and you can earn certain minimum benefits. If you're curious what I mean by contribute, just ask, please don't assume. If you don't want to contribute, that's your right, but you forfeit your benefits , but as I said, I think this gets muddy when their are children involved.

Where you and I most likely disagree is where the money comes from to provide those benefits. In my perfect world the government would print it's own money (rather than borrow it), but that's a different story with lots of different consequences best saved for a different thread.

Since I'm constrained to work within the current system, I support taxes for this purpose. The redistribution of resources, especially those at the very top. The argument that this isn't optimal seems a silly one. Especially since those at the bottom usually spend all of their money, the allocation of those resources go right back to society at large and in many cases those at the top that were taxed the most have another opportunity to re-earn the money. Furthermore, those at the very top aren't allocating their resources in a way that is best everyone as much of their money is hoarded and invested in ways that have little or any benefit to those in the lower and middle classes.

We live in a groups, families, towns, states nation and ultimately the world. Everyone is better off when others succeed. It is in your best interest to help other succeed. Does that mean that I believe that people should be provided for?

The problem with your response is that it is too often statements like yours are used to justify doing nothing. "the poor are all lazy who don't want to work". Having grown up very poor I know thats not true for most people. Most people aspire to live beyond what welfare provides. My mother was forced to leave school in 6th grade. She new nothing of the experiences of high school or college, how was she supposed to pass that on to me? Now I was fortunate in that I had a family that helped me in those endeavors, but many children don't have what I had.

Do You really beleive that there is a job, in every place for a person that wants one?
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think capable people should be put to a choice. Contribute to society and you can earn certain minimum benefits. If you're curious what I mean by contribute, just ask, please don't assume. If you don't want to contribute, that's your right, but you forfeit your benefits , but as I said, I think this gets muddy when their are children involved.

Where you and I most likely disagree is where the money comes from to provide those benefits. In my perfect world the government would print it's own money (rather than borrow it), but that's a different story with lots of different consequences best saved for a different thread.

Since I'm constrained to work within the current system, I support taxes for this purpose. The redistribution of resources, especially those at the very top. The argument that this isn't optimal seems a silly one. Especially since those at the bottom usually spend all of their money, the allocation of those resources go right back to society at large and in many cases those at the top that were taxed the most have another opportunity to re-earn the money. Furthermore, those at the very top aren't allocating their resources in a way that is best everyone as much of their money is hoarded and invested in ways that have little or any benefit to those in the lower and middle classes.

We live in a groups, families, towns, states nation and ultimately the world. Everyone is better off when others succeed. It is in your best interest to help other succeed. Does that mean that I believe that people should be provided for?

The problem with your response is that it is too often statements like yours are used to justify doing nothing. "the poor are all lazy who don't want to work". Having grown up very poor I know thats not true for most people. Most people aspire to live beyond what welfare provides. My mother was forced to leave school in 6th grade. She new nothing of the experiences of high school or college, how was she supposed to pass that on to me? Now I was fortunate in that I had a family that helped me in those endeavors, but many children don't have what I had.

Do You really beleive that there is a job, in every place for a person that wants one?
I will answer the last first... I do not think there is always a job in every place for a person that wants one, no. I do think there are lots of jobs generally available, especially if one takes advantage of educational and experiential opportunities. One should strive to match skills to jobs available, be willing to relocate and be also willing to do jobs below what one thinks they should have... I have, several times. Work, honest work, is good for all concerned.

As my original post stated, "I do not think anybody with a conscience is against helping those that cannot help themselves." Within that contained set are children of those who are either the unable or the unwilling to help themselves. Children should be given ample aid, food and shelter as well as educational opportunities to help themselves grow into productive citizens. I, too, feel this is an area of real complexity, needing a delicate but strong hand... as some do take advantage and abuse this offer of help, make it a way to escape providing for themselves at the expense of others.

Its hard to look at the whole and make decisions for others so bluntly, but we probably should have a maximum as to children that parents can claim... in other words, you get a maximum amount minimally covering all the necessities... maybe sufficient for one child, depending on circumstances [ perhaps in the case of twins, etc...] so as not to encourage having additional children just to take advantage of the system. If you have more and you have not yourself provided a way for yourself to take care of those you have created, I think perhaps you might be an unfit parent to put yourself in that situation where you have more than you can provide for thus endangering yourself and your children.

That may seem harsh, but with that message sent we, perhaps, would not have the likelihood of so much abuse of the system and any newly created children could be placed with more attentive, financially stable family structures.

I think most of us want the best for our fellow Americans as well as all others, to a greater or lesser extent. Doing nothing would be a travesty, doing too much for those undeserving, incentivizing the unproductive in a manner that hurts children, is a similar travesty.

Taxes and charity is the way to help children. Capable adults should be advantaged some assistance, but I, too, think there should be some positive contributory exchange performed to gain that assistance.

Don't know if that answers your question... but thanks for asking.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,581
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
I consider myself a moral person as well, and my personal ethics don't really define my political opinions. I support the libertarian platform for the most part, although I am personally conservative wrt my own life. Iow i support the right to choose, in spite of the fact that I would not consider abortion for myself.
I also don't consider the support of social welfare to be a moral issue. Morality concerns one's personal behaviors.
 
Last edited:

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,522
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the sense that the foundation of my morality is based on free choice? Yes. In the sense that my determination of what is right and wrong should be universally imposed on everyone without exception? No.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)

Values---->Beliefs----->Actions
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I consider myself a moral person as well, and my personal ethics don't really define my political opinions. I support the libertarian platform for the most part, although I am personally conservative wrt my own life. Iow i support the right to choose, in spite of the fact that I would not consider abortion for myself.
I also don't consider the support of social welfare to be a moral issue. Morality concerns one's personal behaviors.

I'm curious, how would you personally define morality?
 

AGENT J

"I'm kind of a big deal"
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
59,400
Reaction score
16,915
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BTW, its IMPOSSIBLE to not have your political beliefs defined by your ethics, since your ethics are the ground for what political goals or end's one has.
this is simply factually not true, many people including myself have different politic views and goals than their own personal ethics, believes, morals and opinions.


In fact the best leaders and politicians understand they need to have an amount of separation.

THinking my personal morals and ethics need to be forced on the country is ass backwards and goes against what this country is.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.

I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!


(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
Do you actually help those who can't help themselves? Do you work with the poor? Do you give significant amounts of money to charity?

Polls have shown that left wingers are much less likely to give their own money to charity. They seem to prefer getting the state to coerce others to pay taxes that will be used to help the poor. A little. Much of that money goes to pay liberal bureaucrats who run the welfare programs, which gets back to where their real ethics are -- helping themselves.

What a person does says far more about their ethical philosophy than what they say. And here on DP for the most part that is not verifiable.
 

Cyrylek

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,467
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Boston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
.
That's not morality, that's compassion. We need both, but they are different things: morality is a set of rules, not a belief or an emotion.

Classical liberalism (libertarianism) is based, of course, on the moral system centered around the freedom of choice as prime value. Coercion and fraud are wrong. Do not unto others what you do not wish unto yourself - and nobody wishes to be coerced, by definition.
 
Top Bottom