Cross-posted at my blog MoralMeaning.com
The Moral Leftist:
- Advances moral values
- Seeks to apply consistent moral principles
- Believes in universal truths
- De-emphasizes tolerance
Advances moral values
For the Moral Leftist it is the reason for taking a stance that matters most.
For example, why support good schools for children? Not because it keeps kids out of jail, or because it helps turn kids into future office, factory and fast food workers. The reason for calling for good schools is because children deserve rich and interesting educational experiences. We build schools for our kids out of our love for children. While both keeping kids out of jail and providing loving places for children to learn will result in there being schools, to the Moral Leftist schools built for a reason other than for a compelling moral reason miss the point about what should really matter in our society.
For another example, why oppose the war in Iraq? For the Moral Leftist its not because the war makes America less safe, costs too much and will weaken America’s place in world. Instead, the reason for opposing the war is because of the immoral nature of the war. No further justification is required.
The Moral Leftist is motivated by a belief in certain core values. While those values will be either reflected by or in opposition to certain policies, it is the values that matter and not the policies.
Moral reasons are not the only reasons to take a political stance. Other valid reasons include coalition building, serving economic interests of different sectors of the economy and building up power through institution building. While it is valid for politicians in a democracy to take stances for reasons other than moral reasons, there are some issues that the Moral Leftist believes ought only be considered on moral terms.
Seeks to apply consistent moral principles
Transactional political leaders do not need consistent moral platforms. If they did, then the mainstream of the Republican Party would not support wars of aggression while also calling themselves pro-life. And the Democratic Party would not sign into law the Defense of Marriage Act while also calling themselves the champions of legal equally and civil rights. The Republicans are not pro-life, because the moral issue of the sanctity of life extends to all life – not just Americans in their mother’s womb. And the majority of Democrats do not universally apply the principles of legal equality, believing that the political costs for such a principled stance are too high. Instead of seeking to apply consistent moral principles, the mainstreams of both parties cobble together working political coalitions.
In contrast, the Moral Left is bound by moral principle first. While each individual will apply a different moral code, the process is the same for each person as they decide what issues and policies to advance. The moral value comes first. Only after the value has been established does the reality of the political equation come to mind.
For me this results in holding views that place me outside some of the most popular liberal positions – such as with abortion. I start with an absolute belief in the inherent worth of every human life, and then seek to apply this belief to my policy positions. I am pro-life across the board. I strongly oppose militarization and illegal wars of aggression such as the war in Iraq. I am opposed to the death penalty. I am deeply concerned about how moves towards euthanasia will be practiced by corporate providers of health care. I believe that abortion should be ended.
While the Moral Left seeks to advance consistent moral principles, we are still members of the Left. That means that we understand that there are gray areas and that good people can disagree on important values. But just because we understand the limitations of our understanding of what is right and wrong, does not mean that we abandon our convictions. Instead, it requires that we work with others holding different beliefs. And being liberals we are reluctant to assert ourselves as infallible.
Believes in Universal Truths
In order to advance a morally driven political vision there must be universal truths. For the liberal (especially the secular liberal) this is a sticky point. Most universal truths stem from religion, and as such may not make sense when applied to civic life. That said, there are moral beliefs that transcend most religious sects – such as the belief that murder is wrong, caring for one’s child is right and being trustworthy is good.
For the Moral Leftist universal truths serve to provide a moral grounding for each person’s outlook on civic priorities. These truths provide the motivation for the individual to participate in the political arena. But, unlike the Moral Right, the Moral Left does not seek a moral code from the state. Rather than asking government to define what is and is not universally true, the Moral Leftist applies his or her truth when seeking to influence civic priorities.
The belief in, and motivation by, universal truths separates the Moral Leftist from other kinds of liberals. Indeed or those whose outlook is influenced more by moral relativism than by universalism, appeals to moral codes are troublesome.
It should be noted that while the Moral Leftist believes and acts upon universal truths, there are many issues and priorities with no basis in such truths. Additionally (for me, at least), the belief in universal truths does not mean that one knows for certain what these truths are. The best we can do is approximate such truths, and to apply the one’s we are most certain about (such as prohibitions to murder and wars of aggression).
De-emphasizes tolerance
As much as we’d like to, we can’t have it all. While tolerance is a core value for many liberals, for the Moral Leftist it is not. That’s because we have little tolerance for what we believe is immoral. Moral activism is based not on tolerance, but instead on making and acting upon one’s moral judgments.
While tolerance is not emphasized, it is not outright rejected. There are many instances in which tolerance is generally called for. The point is not that tolerance is disregarded in whole, but rather that it is not accepted in whole.
