Morality and the left

[Rabaula27]

excuse the ramblings but my thoughts on this are not entirely clear yet and I am looking for the opinions of others to help me clarify my own.

There seems to be a general belief in society that the progressive left are a morally good force and morally superior to the right.

I have never really believed this myself but I have met many people who seem to see the right as bad or morally defective in some way.

I believe that this is wrong and that it comes from the decline of Christianity and the left appropriating and twisting some previously held Christian moral assumptions from the 1960’s onwards with scriptures such as ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ or ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’ being twisted to mean things like ‘the stronger of the two parties in any dispute is automatically the oppressor’ or poverty being seen as a virtue.

When I look at the world today I just don’t see the left as particularly moral at all. Here are some of the things that really jump out at me:

1. While many left wing people genuinely do want to help the disadvantaged some of them are no doubt also driven by envy, resentment and a desire to appropriate that which they did not earn. It’s not like the mainstream right want people to be poor or hungry is it? They just disagree on the best way to create wealth and prosperity. That might make them wrong but it doesn’t make them bad.
2. The scandal of PIE in the U.K. that happened in the 1970’s and early 80’s wasn’t an isolated incident and it hasn’t gone away, it has been with the post-modern left since the beginning and there are still elements of the left that are ideologically sympathetic towards that sort of thing today and there always has been.
3. There are obviously sections of the left that are anti-Semitic and again there always have been.

These are just three random examples of the left being an immoral or at least no better than the right. What do others think about this?

I’m wondering if the left are just wrong because their view of human nature is wrong and all their mistakes flow from that?

I often ponder if politics is in fact a circle and the far right and far left join up in the middle. (In terms of their attitudes rather than specific beliefs)

The horseshoe theory.

Ridiculous thinking. We should be constantly scrutinising both parties, not ignoring them until it’s time to politicking for or against them. Braver man is one of the most amoral politicians I can think of for example.

also to”criminalising misgendering” is something they discussed at a conference and the daily mail has stoked fear of in their pro-right pro-Tory agenda.

Completely agree although I don't know what PIE is.

Small C conservative values include self reliance and the family unit - both which are beneficial for society and children.

Broken families and reliance on the state are championed by the left - these things are terrible for society and children.

How they justify this is beyond me

@hoven https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

I agree both parties should always be scrutinised, but with Labour set for a landslide, their policies on gender really need the spotlight.

Braverman extreme? You want to check what Hilary Clinton said about illegal migration issues in the US back in the 90s...it would make your hair curl.

It's no secret Labour want to bring in beefed up online LGBTQ+ anti-hate speech laws. It's evident that Labour have very little room for manouvre in terms of meaningful policies, Starmer's only legacy is likely to be easy hits like this law change, making GRCs ten a penny, and his proposed Race Relations Act 2, the most pointless piece of legislation ever.

Starmer will be the king of quotas and codified virtue signals.

Ah yes, Harriet, darling of left liberals ever, just so poised and principled taking on that scoundrel Johnson over PartyGate.

Everyday's a school day. 😊

Who do you mean precisely when you say 'the progressive left'?

Obviously the whole of the left haven't signed up to any doctrines on this. There are going to be different viewpoints.

But there may be a tendency towards atheism / naturalism, and a denial of free free, or only accepting the compatibilist version of free will. So if they go down that path, it's a form of moral nihilism that drastically undermines a person's responsibility for their actions. So the worst criminal may still need to be punished for the public good, but really they are innocent and blameless in the greater perspective.

There is also I think a strong tendency on the left to reject the retributive theory of punishment. So they think it's backwards and "mere revenge" and they have a more enlightened approach. They can still support punishment for deterrence or perhaps public safety purposes or whatever.

However, if you deny that the murderer or rapist etc. actually deserves punishment in the stricter sense, then I think that does likely reflect on their responsibility. They are morally blameworthy for their actions, but they don't really deserve to pay a price? Looks like it will undermine responsibility to me.

And also, I think with crime, the tendency on the left is to look for explanations like poverty or social conditions. I assume there is some truth to that. But the left will maybe take it the point where that's the focus, rather than also individual responsibility. So if you want to fix crime, they think, you need their economic and social policy.

I had not thought of this but you're probably right.

Jake Wallis Simons had an excellent article in the Telegraph about the left and antisemiticism and why progressives often suffer from Israelophobia despite Israel's socialist roots. (I am old enough to remember when a left wing gap year was often spent on a kibutz before the left decided to make hating Israel and Jews a hobby). The article shows some of the steps on the road you mention.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/liberal-left-cheerleading-jihadism-hamas-israel-conflict/

You can proabably find it in full on one of the usual sites.

This

Another point I make with the left's morality, is that in a way, it isn't necessarily any better than a religious fundamentalist appealing to scripture.

There are human rights that pretty much everyone is going to accept. For example, a dictatorship killing dissidents to maintain their personal power is evil. Or people have a right to a fair trial.

But if you just make stuff up and declare it's a "human right" without any real strong case, and where it would be highly controversial, then obviously that's not a great basis for moral claims.

And if you then use the excuse of "human rights" to try to force your position on everyone else, it's actually arguably oppressive and immoral behaviour.

With, "trans rights are human rights", I'm sure many people here will agree it has been made up by a biased movement, and they haven't supported the claim. You can just deny it and say, "women's rights are human rights".

The worse of the left are always destroying wherever decent thing exists. They have double standards. Scream fair share and offer you a discount if you pay them cash to not pay tax. That if they work at all. Many are freeloaders and want you to pick up their tab. I never knew about PIE literally puking. These people brainwash and manipulate the young people as they have infiltrated secondary school and universities. My worst nightmare at university was seeing young girls going out with those academic pigs much older than them. Cringe! They also think that they own the minorities and act sanctimonious. Only naive people can believe they are good people.

I began on the left but now identify as a moderate conservative. Part of the reason has been my actual experience of left-wing people. I’ve met very few I respect. Often, I find them smug, intolerant, fanatical and narrow-minded. They also tend to be bullies. In my experience, conservatives (not the free market/Thatcherite type, but the moderate ones) are more tolerant, more open to other points of view, and more willing to change their mind.

The idea that the left are morally superior is laughable. They are every bit as nasty, spiteful and hate-filled as those on the far right. It’s only the target that is different. Often, they are motivated not by sympathy for ‘the poor’ but by hatred for the rich. Anything that hurts or upsets the suburban Daily Mail readers makes them happy. You see it in Labour’s plan to build on the green belt. Many left-wing people want to ruin the lives of middle-class NIMBYs. They love the thought of a middle-class homeowner in the countryside having a big housing estate built next door. If you don’t believe me, spend some time debating it on social media.

Another thing I loathe about the left is their destructiveness. Many of them are overgrown adolescents who never grew out the rebel stage. Even in their 40s and 50s they are still trying to shock and provoke - to smash things up just for the sake of it.

I blame the Guardian.

All of the vitriolic ‘Tory scum’ hating left wing people I know are champagne socialists who loudly advocate for the sort of social justice cultural change that they safely know will not affect their comfortable shored-up white middle class lives and privately educated kids one little jot.

This is why large numbers of working class people vote Tory. It’s not because they think the Tories are any better - they’re not fucking stupid. It’s because the stench of hypocrisy and being patronised by the left is just too humiliating to support.

I like champagne.

🥂- chin chin - here’s to feminism though!

An article on "moral foundations theory" which tries to explain differences between the left and right:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

Across many kinds of surveys, in the UK as well as in the USA, we find that people who self-identify as being on the left score higher on questions about care/harm. For example, how much would someone have to pay you to kick a dog in the head? Nobody wants to do this, but liberals say they would require more money than conservatives to cause harm to an innocent creature.

But on matters relating to group loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity (treating things as sacred and untouchable, not only in the context of religion), it sometimes seems that liberals lack the moral taste buds, or at least, their moral "cuisine" makes less use of them. For example, according to our data, if you want to hire someone to criticise your nation on a radio show in another nation (loyalty), give the finger to his boss (authority), or sign a piece of paper stating one's willingness to sell his soul (sanctity), you can save a lot of money by posting a sign: "Conservatives need not apply."

How to define right and left is complicated.

I would say more realistically, you could find, in our society, the traditional left and traditional conservatives, who have quite a lot in common really, and then economic liberals and social liberals. All of these groups have something of a spectrum too.

Speaking very very generally, historically in the UK you could associate conservatism with the aristocracy, the traditional left with the working classes, and the liberals of both kinds with the middle classes. Today, both of the major parties are dominated by liberalism though there are echoes of traditional leftism and conservatism.

Anyway, I would agree that there is a strong tendency on the left, going back to its beginnings really, of seeing itself as morally superior. What has perhaps changed is that this way of thinking seems to have taken over even the more moderate left, who now reflexively assume that they have moral motives, while the right has explicitly immoral and selfish motives. It does remind me of the most simplistic examples of self-satisfied religious busybodies of earlier eras.

I am always surprised at the number of people like this who don't seem to even be aware that there are reasons that the right thinks certain policy approaches that will be better, that have nothing to do with being selfish and evil. It's like they've never actually spoken to anyone who has a different opinion on social or economic policy.

That is a very interesting article, which I'd expect from Haidt, he is a very insightful person.

But the comments are wild, there is an incredible level of myopia among the Guardian-types making them. You wonder if they even bothered to read the article given that a good number do exactly what he says left wing people do when trying to understand why working class people vote Tory.

If they use either of the sayings 'the meek shall inherit the earth' or 'blessed are the poor in spirit' then the left are misreading them. '(P)oor in spirit' means humble spiritually, not arrogant or hubristic, not one to blow their own trumpet etc, not that they are in poverty or ignorance. As for the meek inheriting the earth it again refers to arrogance and also the desire for pomp and glory exhibited by rulers in general, again, nothing whatsoever to do with being in poverty. It suggests that at the Second Coming Jesus called the Christ will raise up those who do not put themselves forward. It's a similar sentiment to saying that those who want power should not be given it. It doesn't mean there should not be rulers or powerful people, nor does it mean that the poor and ignorant ought to rule, nor does it mean that rulers are necessarily oppressive.

If Labour does intend to criminalise 'misgendering' it will be in breach of the EA2010, which protects religious and philosophical beliefs, and since the Forstater case included being gender critical. Challengable.