Would you vote Moral or Existential?

Where is
[Group] Party
(trying what seems to be) best for [group] by [group]
>largest scale
[group] is best [group]
>smallest
I am in [group]. I am (trying what seems to be) best for [group]

ect.ect.

" Moral " is far to relative to make sence and be a cathegorical imperative on its own.

Morals primary function should be sustaining and spreading humanity the most efficient way possible, or at least a certain integrative group.

Therefor the left who consider themselves " moral " are nothing more than ignorant hypocritical degenerates who put cathegorical imperative of morality above its prime function, which is absurd.

Thanks for replying.
"Best for all" here means, that a political entity acts in "Best" service to others. Why should it aim for good when it can aim for "best"? The existential liberation party has another purpose. It designs policies that ensure existence of a group, which is very important as well, some times even more so.
Would you vote moral or existential?

I understand :|

see There is no "best" until you define the moral principles.

Kraut, you're not going to find the conversation you are looking for here unless you make several threads educating people. This board is not high iq anymore and needs spoon-feeding of any topic that requires assumptions to be correct before continuing the thought process.

>If a policy leads to the harming of native peoples is it moral?
Then it has a deexisting quality for the native people. it can be moral. Turkey has in a moral act taken in millions of Syrian refugees, harming some native people. These conflicting interests must be equaled out against each other. Was that right?

>You can't have a "moral" party. All Political parties believe they are moral; they all have different definitions of what is moral.
Maybe you are right, but I want to try. If moral and existential can be perceived as holding equal overall value but with different policies, maybe a restructuring is possible?

>It seems to me that you're trying to get people on the right to say they agree that the "moral" party is better. And then you will tell them that the "moral" party is actually a politically left party.

I have my preferences when I vote, but I really try to keep that out of here. And I consider both parties equal over the long run. It seems to me, that man has to act to live and man wants purpose.

>This doesn't work until you define moral principles.
I can give examples, but definitions are out of my current ability. There is moral value to many people's definition of morality, even when they contradict to some degree. I imagine you have an idea yourself?

>Therefor the left who consider themselves " moral " are nothing more than ignorant hypocritical degenerates who put cathegorical imperative of morality above its prime function, which is absurd.

of course it is, but the problem being that along those very same lines of thought, it is easy to trick someone with a lower (meaning not VERY high) iq into thinking that what is good for the masses is what is ultimately the correct thing to do.

it is hard to explain to someone why one group deserves X, and another does not, and not have SOMEONE use the easy but very effective tactic of name calling or shaming that works on nearly EVERYONE no matter iq.

the left is shitted on for their fuck ups when it comes to elections, but their political propaganda and the way they spread their messages is top tier and VERY well researched and thought out. there is zero doubt in my mind that there are some very high ups helping liberals change the scope of right and wrong in society to match that of liberal ideals.

Thanks for replying.
You tell me this in the best such thread ever. :)
As I make these threads, I learn to communicate that way, which I value a lot. I am a long time lurker and I have to bridge that gap and it often is interesting. I still see the relatively free speech as highly attractive at times.

Always Existential. Fuck the greater good.

Its just me trying to structure my thoughts so that others understand them. :)

If you mind, imagine, after WW2, you are back home from the European theater as a winner, how would you decide?

The refugee example: I disagree that taking in millions of refugees is inherently moral specifically because it harms the native people (not to mention it can also be harmful to refugees if the host country doesn't have the resources to help them properly). You are right in saying that there can be a balance. You can take in some refugees, helping them, and not harming the natives. But you are wrong (in my moral framework) that taking in millions of refugees in good. This is why I can not vote on your "moral" vs "existential" poll, because we have differing moral principles.

Am I right in saying that your "moral" party places the greater good above personal good? And existential vice-versa? Can we call this globalist/nationalist?

I appreciate the structure. It is well laid out. You're presenting a false dichotomy though.
If pressed I would vote for Existential, but I would not be happy with their scope/goal

Debate would have to restructure the current policy ideas, where both left and right often have both moral and existential ideas. But I imagine the result might be worthwhile?

If restructured, it would certainly be more honest

Sorry, I forgot, that there is a part two with some explanations :/

Attached: New Bipol v5-2.jpg (671x958, 1016K)

>This is why I can not vote on your "moral" vs "existential" poll, because we have differing moral principles.
Thats OK, your choice. Morality is a complex and contradictory field, only broad public debates could create clear structures here I guess. Maybe with the proposed structure a basic beginning can be catalytic?

>Am I right in saying that your "moral" party places the greater good above personal good? And existential vice-versa? Can we call this globalist/nationalist?

Globalist/nationalist to me are just levels of administration. Both are useful, like the local level also has issues to manage. Example :Nation Hungary with 7 million people negotiating with Nation China with 1300 million people makes a case for cooperation between smaller nations to achieve some fair stability. On every political level I see reasons for asking: Do we serve us or do we serve a greater good (while both options have merit usually)?

Thanks for replying.
What especially pushes you off?

With restructuring I mean the public ideas of mostly of morality, not my proposal. (Though I often make little changes.)

This is why nobody respects philospohy. Nonsensical shit like this.

interesting comments, but I agree with the others above that morality, without a common grounding in culture, religion, indentity...., to variable to encompass all moral distinctions under one cohesive political unity.

Some Conservatives see same sex marriage as a moral issue and object to it. Some see it as a question of individual liberty and are indifferent/support it. They are both Moral and Existential in your framework.

I don't disagree that we need to move beyond the left/right poltiical spectrum.

Or kill all the communists. either is fine.

>Am I right in saying that your "moral" party places the greater good above personal good? And existential vice-versa?
Yes.

Thanks for replying. I sometimes wish, that I were better at explaining these ideas. Sometimes I work on it. What makes you stop thinking?

Its a wild mix now, but a public global debate might help, I imagine.
In my eyes the Conservative objections to same sex marriage can also be described as long-term harming existence of the people, deexisting. This makes opposition to it an existential policy.
The current standard, that it is a conservative policy would fall flat if in the past there had been same sex marriage and conserving it meant allowing it. "Conservative" depends fully on what was before, tradition, which makes it greater-scale incompatible due to variant histories of nations.