The Difference Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing

Post Reply New Topic

Oooooh Jesus Christ thats a long post...

Morality does not = traditional values
Morality does not = religious values
Morality does not = the views of conservative b**tards who want to outlaw everything from gay marriage to straight divorce (or those of any other group, before you say anything)
And while were at it...
Morality does not = law


I didnt say right-wingers succeed in stopping people from thinking or deciding for themselves, what I said was that they try. And you agreed with me - see 'However, moral decisions made by individuals can have dire consequences for society. The right wing response is to try to prevent these decisions by trying to instill within people the "right way". The world only becomes worse if everyone makes bad personal decisions'. Also, that isnt entirely accurate. The effect is much much worse if right-wingers indoctrinate the majority of people to make bad decisions than if a few individuals make their own bad decisions.


As I said before, thats an oxymoron. If its of something, including a nation, then its subjective. And if its subjective, then why not ignore it? Your argument doesnt hold here.


In many cases, civil war is better than a particular side not rising to the challenge. Take, for example, Britain in a few months time (if all our worst nightmares come true, that is, but its more likely every day that they will). While well all be a LOT better off if Blair aborts his abolition of democracy, or is stopped through democratic/diplomatic means, you MUST agree, surely, that it would be a disaster if, should he succeed, the population just lay down and accepted it rather than raising arms.


That much I agree with. What I DONT agree with is that laws = morals or vice versa.

Mebbe ill answer the rest of it tomorrow, but its now 20 past 1 in the morning here, and Im fscking tired.

Yeah, that was.... I guess I did not expect it to get that long but I guess as an internet discussion goes on it diverges into many different points and as more points are made more points have to be addressed by an opposition so after a long period of time posts get insanely long. I have seen posts that are half of a page on some internet forums.


mo-ral-i-ty (m-rali-te, mo-)n.pl. mo-ral-i-ties. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Religious values are a form of morality in that they meet the criteria set by the 2nd definition of morality, the same is true with traditional values. Morality is a part of law because law is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct, most people have morality that stretches further than the law but the law itself is formed based on moral ideas.


I don't think that my comment amounts to trying to prevent people from thinking or deciding, besides, people don't really need to make their own choices on certain moral aspects, all societies realize that, the right wing disagrees with the extent to which this is true. Murder is wrong in a lawful society, no question, personal irresponsibility is also wrong, the question is how wrong and what parts. That is like me equating the left wing to slavery based on the fact that nobody has economic freedom. Also, what I stated is accurate to a large extent, a mindless mass of right-wing indoctrinated people would be an improvement over the current system. Truly any system would work if everyone was indoctrinated to believe in its success and to work towards that success.

We cannot truly know what is objectively true, there are all sorts of philosophies that try to address that. However, the point I am addressing is the belief in objective truth. Believing in an objective truth is not an oxymoron and a nation having its own belief in a certain objective truth is not an oxymoron. There may be a question on whether those things are objectively true or not but certain things must be taken as being true for society to exist in a successful manner.

Umm... Blair is not on a war with democracy and I doubt that he will need a civil war. There may be some criticisms on his authoritarianism but he lacks the power to control the UK. Also, civil war is really bad for a nation, it often hurts the economy because it is a nation destroying itself, it hurts its international standing as it shows the nation to be politically unstable and creates problems with other nations interfering with the war, it kills many people, and if civil war can be avoided at all which it probably can in relatively stable nations then it should. Civil war creates many problems and does not succeed in solving most just in creating more problems. If your civil war against Blair succeeded you would have to deal with a large population of Blairists that would have to be ruthlessly brought back into the fold. The US Civil war had more suppression of rights by the government than most other times, both during the war and after the war when we tried to reconstruct the South and failed to do so perfectly leading to problems with racism.

[/quote] Laws reflect a form of morality, and mainly a form of morality that is commonly agreed upon. Most people would agree with murder being wrong, same as rape, the question that governments face is what laws to create. For every political belief different laws must be created and these different beliefs reflect different moral beliefs. The idea that capitalism is a very moral system is the opposite of socialism being considered a moral system and the laws created to support the different beliefs would show that.

Anyway, good night, hope you sleep well.

...

Mebbe I should have used different terminology... Right and wrong suffice?


Murders wrong in ANY society, lawful or otherwise. The presence or absence of law dosent effect morality.


I guess we just disagree on the importance of freedom and individuality. To be expected, I guess...


In the case of morality, we know its objectively true, its just impossible for us to have a completely accurate and definate account of what that objective truth IS. Which is why people disagree on the matter.


I know. In fact, Ive been arguing for this whole debate that there IS an objective truth, independant of anything else. What IS an oxymoron is the idea of an independant truth laid down or dependant on a nation. Its own belief in a certain objective truth isnt illogical, but it would be illogical to say that the countrys belief makes it true or objective.


ummm you obviously havent heard about this....
http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/problem.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2040625,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/comment/0,,1724047,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=378045&in_page_id=1787
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2006/03/oliver_heald_mp_writes_to_spy.html#more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/18/nbill18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/18/ixhome.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_and_Regulatory_Reform_Bill
http://s13.invisionfree.com/Codelyoko_Backup/index.php?showtopic=4053 (go down to the Lord of the Net's post, Posted: Mar 1 2006, 01:38 PM)
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=325162006
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/forums/viewmessages.asp?topicid=9198&forumid=19
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2006/02/legislative-regulatory-reform-bill.html
http://www.mdxlawsoc.co.uk/news/archives/2006/03/18/the-bill-to-end-all-bills/
http://eclectech.blogspot.com/2006/02/bill-to-end-all-bills.html
http://arthurnewhook.blogspot.com/ (go down to the heading "BILL TO END ALL BILLS")
And there WAS an Indymedia Ireland report as well, which was the most comprehensive Ive seen, but they must have been forced to remove it cos I cant find it now.


Considering the reasoning for the the uprising, I doubt anyone would resist it when they were no longer being ordered to do so. The "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill" is something you can feel strongly against, and something you can be indefferent about, but Im not sure its something anyone could feel strongly in favour of.


Yes, MOST laws do reflect morality. Ill give you an example of where they dont. In Nazi Germany, there was a law against hiding Jewish people from the Gestapo.[/url]

Morality is a system of right and wrong. I dunno, maybe if I saw the difference between the different terminologies I would think differently.

Well, no, murder is not wrong in any society. What if our society allowed slavery. It would not be wrong to beat a disrespectful slave to death but that act could be considered murder if we extended that term to any killing of one being by another in a manner that could be considered unjust. Duels would also be considered murder under that term. The reason why I want to extend the term is because murder is defined by its relationship to law. There have been times when many things we consider wrong today haven't been wrong. Throwing a new born away because you didn't want it was alright in the Roman days even though that would be considered despicable today. Also, morality is something that is only defined in the relationship to the people governed by it, my moral structure could be blatantly racist, or outright libertarian, or even psychotic and that would affect the laws that I would want to govern a society.

Well, right, you consider freedom and individuality as the highest virtues and I consider the 2 things as means to an end. People need some level of freedom and individuality for progress to occur; Sparta was a very powerful city-state, it had even conquered all of Greece at one point which crushed the Athenians, however, despite all of its might it fell. The reason being that it could not adapt. I want adaptivity in a nation so it won't fall but I don't want that nation to be crushed by a Sparta.

Well, we believe our own morality is objectively true but without proof, the completely accurate and definite account on what objective truth is, we cannot say what is true and what is false. Knowing and believing are different things, I don't really want to get into an argument where this distinction is blurred otherwise it will just fall down to everything is a belief. Let us just assume that there are some constants, the first of which is that reality is real as this is not the debate for dealing with that assumption.

Ok, I have been using the term objective to mean absolute for this entire argument. Just exchange my "objective"'s for "absolute"'s and everything will be fine. It is just that moral objectivism is the belief that some things are objectively right or wrong regardless of human opinion on the matter. It is a form of moral absolutism because of that opinion but I should have used the term absolute because of the fact that objective typically means something else.

Ok, I read that and still, I don't think he was going to war with democracy. IF he was then he was doing a really bad job at it as the public opinions on the matter did not favor him and favorable public opinions are things that are necessary for maintaining the control that he would want. The move he made was an attempt to cut down on bureacracy, it is almost similar to the American desire for a line-item veto which would give the executive branch great power and is considered unconstitutional by the supreme court but would cut down on pork spending. An enemy of democracy would first target the opposition and eliminate them before usurping power, the fact that Blair did not really do this means that he is probably well-meaning. Former US Senator McCarthy was probably a greater threat to democracy than Blair as a dictator needs popular support in one form or another to maintain dictatorial power, otherwise they will be overthrown because in almost every country the masses outnumber the rulers.

Well, you may have some point however, the feeling that the revolution was unjust and extreme would still plague the minds of those who opposed you. They would feel as if a radical regime had taken power in an unjust civil war and would cause some problems, plus the civil war would always cause great economic damage and damage to the view of England in international politics. If the conditions were truly ripe for a civil war then some force would make Tony Blair back down, nobody wants a civil war as they would realize the great harm it would do. However, there will always be those who would defend the nation from the usurpers and that will cause much blood to be shed.

Uh... actually that was a law reflecting the morality of the Nazis. According to their moral ideas it was wrong to hide the evil jews from righteous justice. However, such a law would be considered evil by our system because to us the Jew is a respected citizen as I believe he should be(just making that clear so you wouldn't see my expression of the Nazi view as a reflection of my own, the internet breeds all sorts of confusion). Laws and governance always reflects morality. Go to this website http://www.moral-politics.com, it has a good political view test that is based on the idea that our political position is based on our moral ideals. You would probably be put somewhere in the Socialist section. The law and the government of a society reflects their moral belief and every law probably reflects somebody's moral belief otherwise it would not be made, however, the law might not be good for people or it might not and it might not reflect the moral beliefs of some people.

Ok, justice and injustice then. That better?


I beg to differ

Being legal doesnt make an evil act right any more than being illegal makes something wrong.


Well... considering thats what murder means...

0.o?


No, murder is murder. Law is ink on paper.


It was considered fine, but that dosent mean it was. Morality doesnt change based on society. Your not going to convince me that it does no matter how many examples of past and present injustices you throw in my face, because they were just as wrong then as they are now! Ok?


Yes, but it wouldnt effect objective morality. You obviously have no capacity for reason.


Agreed. Not that whether or not reality is realcan really be debated anyway, its what reality is thats foggy.


0.o did you actually CLICK on any of the links and read the articles? Or did you just read the list of links?


I think youd be suprised how many people have been in favour of his authoritarianism thus far. Granted, most of them havent heard about that bill, but I think a lot of people would support it anyway, or at least continue to support him if the bill goes through.


Yes, but it gives him absolute power in the process. Even the few limits there ARE on the powers he gains from it (not being able to bring in taxes, etc), it gives him the power to rewrite itself without those limits.


You can be an enemy of democracy and still be well meaning. As I said, I CAN see the logic behind opposition to democracy, it IS an obstacle to efficiency.


They wont be overthrown unless people get rid of the attitude that one person dosent make a difference. ONE person might not, but 100,000 one persons do. And unless each of those one persons decides to fight, there wont be 100,000 of them.


The fact that THEIR LAWS and THEIR SOCIETY said it was wrong didnt make it wrong. Any more than its our laws or our society that makes it right. But weve derailed this debate, its supposed to be about right wing and left wing, but weve made it about moral relativism and moral realism.

Left-wing: meaning on the left side of the political spectrum (liberal)

Right-wing: meaning on the right side of the political spectrum (conservative)

I am more moderate than anything else

Well, justice still has a relationship to morality and to law. If a person's moral beliefs allowed for them to attack any person that disrespects them and if the law backs this up then according to them it would be just. So, beating up on a hobo that calls you a horrible excuse for a human being could theoretically be considered just based upon the society and individuals outlined.

You would believe it to be wrong but the people of that society wouldn't think so. If we could decide our moral beliefs without care for societal values then we would have anarchy as people would come to conclusions that would be opposed to one another. Your only proof that beating a slave to death is wrong would be your morality, without that governing function then you would beat all of your lessers if you could get away with it. Laws are not held up by force, they are held up by the moral values of the governed populations, without laws society falls so the only way to maintain society is to make laws that fall in line with the values of people and to have people with the values of the law.

Murder is unlawful and that is how it is defined. I tried to use unjust as a term to evoke our moral values as opposed to theirs. A government executing a political prisoner is not murder because it is lawful it does not matter how much we think that the person deserved death or even if we thought they deserved praise, killing by a state or that is authorized by the laws of the state is not murder because it is lawful.


mur-der (murdr)n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Lawful killings are not murder because murder is defined by its relationship to the law.

Morality may not change but the perception of it does. Your claim that your moral beliefs are correct is as justified as that of the roman or of the fascist. Do you have proof that your moral beliefs are absolutely correct? A right winger could call you evil with as much righteousness as you have, after all, they could also have an absolute moral belief that does not change with society as well and they could believe as strongly in their beliefs as you do in yours.

You claim that I have no capacity for reason yet you are the one who sticks to your baseless belief. I could claim that your capacity for reason is lacking as well. Your response to my attacks has the same foundation as a fascists. Fascists believe in their own moral truth and could claim that their ideal is the truth. Your argument has fallen down to "I believe this is correct so therefore it is" you offer no proof that any of my "injustices" are really objectively injust.

Well, I have tried to get into debates similar to that, they pretty much fall apart because there is no logic that tells us whether or not what we see is absolutely real. For all we know we could be brains in jars.

Yes I did, just because I don't agree with you on a matter does not mean that my intelligence is less than yours or that I try to remain ignorant. The law was not all powerful, if he got out of control then he would be put down by an angry populace. Long standing governments are hard to take down and anyone who disrupts the balance would be removed by the powers that be.

So what? The common masses have rarely been the source of great democratic change. We usually get progress through the ruthless competition between political parties. Some group will get angered by what Blair is doing and he will fall out of favor, that is how the system works.

There are always limits, popularity is one. If he abuses his power then another rival group will get mad at that and campaign aggressively based upon this.

I don't even think that he wants to destroy democracy. Many US presidents in the past have done some things that can be seen as sort of wrong and perhaps authoritarian and anti-democratic, this does not mean that they all hate democracy.


All it takes to remove them is restlessness. The powers within the government are often clever enough to exploit the dislikes and hatreds of the people to get their own power. When a situation becomes negative eventually the democratic system will change to deal with this feeling by the people. Blair has nowhere near the amount of power necessary to control a democratic country.

We have derailed this discussion to some extent but it is still relevant. Moral viewpoints affect the position that people have on the political landscape. Right and Left wings both come from totally different moral ideals and this can be seen in the American culture war and things of that nature. A right winger and a left winger both consider their viewpoints the best viewpoints and will look upon other viewpoints negatively. The extent varies often based somewhat on how far each person is from the other person in terms of moral/political outlook.

you just repeated their fallacy

12 years after it was posted, really?

'This' is interesting on two levels.

Number one; the Topic that is answered
in Full by Social Scientist, Jonathan Haidt,
at the YouTube Link Below, for the Differences
as Empirically Assessed as that Pertains to both
Biological and Environmental Influences at Hand now
as Far as the Human Liberal and Conservative Conditions Do Live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

Number two; the Dwindling Attention Spans of Humans and also the Support of this Website, overall, since 2006.
These were the days that made an every day visit to this Site interesting, And not mostly just a side show of mostly Partisan Politics; but Society is changing; Fascinating it is still. It's True one may/can/will learn from Histories too.

Left Wing - socially Liberal, economically interventionist, big government with a strong social safety net, mostly social democrats with a vocal Marxist and Anarchist minority.

Right Wing - socially conservative, economically liberal, small government, small or non existent social safety net with a strong emphasis on hard work and personal saving, mostly conservatives and minarchist libertarians with a vocal minority of monarchists, nationalists, libertarian anarchists (AnCaps), and Fascists.