• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Question about morality versus votes for a party (1 Viewer)

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
55,575
Reaction score
27,902
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?
 
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?

Political parties and voters should always vote for morals over politics.
 
Convince people that your cause is moral and right. And important enough for the government to be involved in it.

Whatever % of the population may vary.

That’s how things are supposed to work in the US.

🤷‍♀️

Just like lots of people have done before. Women spent YEARS fighting for the right to vote. Minorities fought for years for rights and laws and opportunities. How long did it take for gay marriage to be federally legal?

And…sometimes, you lose ground and have to go and fight again. Such as Roe and abortion and women’s health.

The ERA is basically trash because it took so long..and that fight has to start over again, if that’s what people want.

So, you brush yourself off and go and do it again. 🤷‍♀️

Democracy… if you can keep it 🤷‍♀️
 
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?
On the other hand, if the majority thinks America First is the moral direction to take, does that mean the minority is supporting an immoral position?
 
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?
Good questions.

Those we elect as a whole reflect the voters. Morality is loosening
 
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?
Handicap parking spaces are equal protection issues, not moral issues. That analogy fails.

Rights are granted by the Constitution, not any sense of morality. The OP is clear as mud.
 
Convince people that your cause is moral and right. And important enough for the government to be involved in it.

Whatever % of the population may vary.


That’s how things are supposed to work in the US.

🤷‍♀️

Just like lots of people have done before. Women spent YEARS fighting for the right to vote. Minorities fought for years for rights and laws and opportunities. How long did it take for gay marriage to be federally legal?

And…sometimes, you lose ground and have to go and fight again. Such as Roe and abortion and women’s health.

The ERA is basically trash because it took so long..and that fight has to start over again, if that’s what people want.

So, you brush yourself off and go and do it again. 🤷‍♀️

Democracy… if you can keep it 🤷‍♀️

Convincing others of moral positions is my understanding of how to change opinions on social issues. My expemplar of that practice is the Quaker John Woolman who was an early anti-slavery advocate here in America. He spent his life working wihin his Quaker community and other life activities to help others understand the evil of slavery.

I have a great respect for Quakers, developed in large part, over 50 years of marriange to my wonderful Quaker wife.

 
Political parties and voters should always vote for morals over politics.
Voters are free to vote however they choose, but morals-based policy inherently limits the freedom of those who don't share the same morals.

Rights are a different story - the promise of equality has been a long trek from 1776. These are constitutional issues. When discussing the majority/minority paradigm, the argument is framed as one of oppressor and the oppressed, which itself can be seen as a moral issue.

That appears to be the OP's intent, but I'm not sure. Myself, policy should be as socially libertarian as possible. Morals are in the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:
Convincing others of moral positions is my understanding of how to change opinions on social issues. My expemplar of that practice is the Quaker John Woolman who was an early anti-slavery advocate here in America. He spent his life working wihin his Quaker community and other life activities to help others understand the evil of slavery.

I have a great respect for Quakers, developed in large part, over 50 years of marriange to my wonderful Quaker wife.


Both Quakers and Mennonites are interesting to me.
 
On the other hand, if the majority thinks America First is the moral direction to take, does that mean the minority is supporting an immoral position?
That depends, is a democratic decision always the moral one?
 
How do you suggest a political party handle when an issue has a clear moral position to defend the rights of a minority, but the majority holds another position and can be exploited for votes over it?

Should a party abandon morals routinely and just do what gets more votes? When and how should it do the unpopular but moral thing?

Try to answer the question in general - there are any number of examples which tend to drag the discussion to arguments about the example.

For a hypothetical, imagine the Americans with Disabilities Act had a majority against it saying 'screw them, we want the good parking places for ourselves'. A party could support the act on moral grounds, or oppose it to try to get more votes.

How can our country ever be 'great' or do much of the right thing if the answer is 'tyranny of the majority'? Wouldn't we still have segregation and even slavery?
Maybe you have a point here, but for the life of me I can't make it out. Can you clarify?
 
Convince people that your cause is moral and right. And important enough for the government to be involved in it.

Whatever % of the population may vary.

That’s how things are supposed to work in the US.

🤷‍♀️

Just like lots of people have done before. Women spent YEARS fighting for the right to vote. Minorities fought for years for rights and laws and opportunities. How long did it take for gay marriage to be federally legal?

And…sometimes, you lose ground and have to go and fight again. Such as Roe and abortion and women’s health.

The ERA is basically trash because it took so long..and that fight has to start over again, if that’s what people want.

So, you brush yourself off and go and do it again. 🤷‍♀️

Democracy… if you can keep it 🤷‍♀️
Nobodies rights have been denied that I'm aware of. Would you like to name some specifics. In fact all I see from your post is that some folk realize that taking a baby in the womb's life is immoral.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom