Does your politics affect your 'goodness' as a person?

[David]

I have a feeling that most of us, if forced to take a public position on this question, would probably come up with a wishy-washy response. But what do you really think? Do you catch yourself wondering why conservatives are such heartless bastards, or why leftists are such self-absorbed wankers? In your heart of hearts, do you think that people of one political grouping tend to be more fundamentally decent than another? Or do you think that self-identifying left- and right-wingers are both making the world worse and that most decent people sit somewhere in the middle? Can human goodness (so much as we can talk about such a thing) be affected at all by one's political opinions or voting record?

Anyway, there's a poll. Feel free to explain your reasoning!

[Tannin]

Good question David, but I think it's framed the wrong way around. No one of those three groups is consistently better than both of the others. One of them, however, despite containing many very fine people indeed, is, in aggregate, consistently less worthy, less decent, and comprehensively more likely to make the world a nastier, less pleasant place. A good right-winger - and yes, there are plenty - is often very good indeed (so long as you ignore his or her twisted and misguided politics), but the average one is poor and the bad ones simply shocking.

[think positive]

As with all facets of life, even the nazi party I'm sure, footy supporters, any team, any religious denominations you can think of or make up, including atheists, there will always be good and bad. Even individuals can have good and bad patches, otherwise what good is the word redemption? Too wish washy? And then there are the people who just seem to be born arseholes. Or made arseholes! Pol pot, hitler, umpires come to mind. I've never been keen on pidgeonholing entire groups of people. Except umpires. And I'm sure if I put my mind to it I can think of one good umpire.

I think the question is a bit dodgey, surely. The party you vote for is going to come up roses for you. I'm a bit of a swing vote these days, and I think they are all untrustworthy and greedy bastards.

And I still can't remember which side I'm supposed to be on! I do remember someone explaining it a little while ago!

[Wokko]

Anyone who holds values that mean controlling other people are less 'good'. Those people are overwhelmingly on the left with a smattering of the oddball religious Right, who want to control morality while still holding economically liberal ideas.

So on the political compass North West is the worst by a mile. Still not sure I even believe in the Libertarian left, I mean sure there are hippy communes that I guess fall into voluntary collectivism but people tend to, like every collective system, want to leave those commune setups and they whither and die.

[Tannin]

Anyone who holds values that mean controlling other people are less 'good'.

Absolutely spot on.

Those people are overwhelmingly on the left

Utter garbage. By far the most significant social control is wealth (money, power, property), and scumbag right-wingers insist that they and they alone have the right to use it to control people. They constantly pretend that it is only the other (generally less significant) social controls which count. This is a self-serving delusion which they practically never admit to.

[Wokko]

Scumbag, wealthy left wingers like Zuckerberg think the same thing. Wealth isn't a determinate of political leanings, and many, many billionaires are using their wealth to fund and push leftist/progressive causes. I wonder how many of them will be happy to redistribute their wealth if they get their way.

Gates, Buffett, Soros and Zuckerberg are probably the most visible left wing cause pushing billionaires. Hollywood is overwhelmingly left/progressive and happy to push their politics constantly. By its very nature Left wing economics is controlling; a belief that people can't make good decisions themselves and have to be forceably directed to make good ones.

[Tannin]

Gates, Zuckerberg, left-wing? In your dreams Loopy-d-loop. As for Soros and Buffet, as billionaires go they are half-decent middle-of-the-road types. Pretending that Gates is half-way to being a communist is just delusional.

[Dave The Man]

Should make no Difference of being a Kind Person

[thesoretoothsayer]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111312.htm
"Our data shows that liberalism is more often associated with the underlying motives for compassion, empathy and equality," says Hirsh.

So, lefties have the better motives.
That, however, doesn't make them more decent people.
Millions have been murdered in the name of compassion, empathy and equality.

[Pies4shaw]

True - but mostly by conservatives.

[stui magpie]

Nice provocative poll.

I think politics is irrelevant as people can sit on different sides economically and socially as well as behaviour can make a hypocrite of people.

People are in the main more complex than simple labelling like left, right, good, bad.

[Mugwump]

At the risk of ducking the issue, it really depends on the meaning of terms in your OP like "goodness" and "fundamentally decent" (if, as you rightly noted, " we can talk of such a thing". These superficially self-evident terms probably mean quite different things to different people.

The great German rationalist Immanuel Kant said that the basis of moral action is good will. He had a pretty precise definition of this, but the ordinary way we use this term will suffice : a state of mind which seeks sincerely to enhance the aggregate well being of your fellow humans, as your reason determines this.

Using this definition, I'd say that there are many people of good will on each side of politics, but also lots of hypocrites, self-seekers, power-trippers and (most commonly) arrogant know-alls. Some kinds of flaws are more pronounced on each side, though. It is true that many golf-club conservatives harbour racist views, whereas Leftists consider themselves moral a priori because their views look superficially "a bit moral", so they consider dissent actively wicked and deserving of punishment. I think intolerant people (either through bad faith or lazy reason) are probably about equally plentiful on both side. On balance, I suspect that slightly more people on the left may intend good will, but fail (in my eyes) Kant's reason test, and without both, you can do a great deal of damage.

If that answers the question one way, there is another more personal way to answer it - how is human well-being maximized ? I am very sceptical that simple liberty makes people happy (see the USA in particular). I am also sceptical that revolutionary change makes humans happy (see history in general). I think human beings are happiest when allowed a large measure of security, continuity and shared meaning which binds them into communities with a wide and deep bedrock of voluntary rule-bound behaviour (aka self-discipline). It's my judgement that those who want to overthrow this are wrong, and causing wrong, even if they do so with a good will. But clearly, this is not ultimately provable on terms that are above dispute, so it can only be argued, and should not be held with unshakeable certainty.

[Morrigu]

Wrong thread

[HAL]

Where are you going?

[Morrigu]

The great German rationalist Immanuel Kant said that the basis of moral action is good will.

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." Immanuel Kant