Moralizing in Politics?

[creator20]

In terms of enlightenment I was wondering what the overall goal was for politics. I've never really been a political person but enlightenment has made politics more confusing for me than it already was. On one hand I know that morality is relative & does not actually exist existentially because it is our minds that determine what is "right" or "wrong," but on the other hand, how does this translate into enlightened politics? Are we just making policies that stem from our own subjective morality even though we know that morality is an illusion? Should I stop thinking about the cultivation of political policies in terms of morality & instead in terms of something else more profound? Any insights would be appreciated

[DocWatts]

Just my perspective, so take it with a grain or two of salt, but I see a pragmatic approach to ethics as the best way forward if your goal is to actually leave a lasting impact on the world, and moralizing can be counter productive to that goal. Metaphysical issues aside, for ethics and morality to serve any practical purpose, we need some axiomatic principles that just have to be taken as a given, even if it's something as simple and basic as "we should reduce needless suffering in the world."

While I'm still very much interested in why people believe the things they do, I think it's easy to get hung up on promoting your own worldview, and that its worthwhile to try and find common ground with people from different backgrounds and beliefs where possible. Coming from an American point of view, to get any actual legislation passed that can begin to address systemic problems in our society, you need to make your ideas palatable enough for Middle America, so to speak.

Leo's multipart "Conscious Politics" serious is a great resource that makes a convincing case as to why politics matter, and why its worth your time to engage with the political process.

[Parththakkar12]

@creator20 These are good questions. You are on the right track.

We talk a lot about what's 'good' vs 'bad' in politics. However, from our understanding of non-duality, we see that there is no absolute 'good' vs 'bad', it's all relative. So what is 'good' vs 'bad' relative to in politics? It's what's 'good' vs 'bad' for the country/community.

A community will make rules according to what's good/bad for itself. This is true of religions, countries, civilizations, etc. These rules will serve as the 'boundaries' of the collective, aka a collective ego. The morality will be a part of the collective ego. This morality will then be enforced by a government, police system and a court system. The definition of a particular rule will include enforcement protocols and punishments given out for breaking the rule.

Now why punish the breaking of the rules? Because the rules weren't naturally there, they were artificially constructed. So, they must be artificially enforced. The whole point of 'justice' is to maintain the integrity of the rules created by the community. There are new arguments against the whole notion of justice, that it stems from a revenge mindset, that the collective wants to take revenge from a bad actor by 'punishing' them. This is an interesting consideration.

[Leo Gura]

The purpose of politics and government is to elevate the consciousness and love of mankind.

It's that simple.

See 4 part series: Conscious Politics

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura IYO, what's the point of that?

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Leo Gura IYO, what's the point of that?

What is life?

[Leo Gura]

Consciousness is the only game in town.

[Zigzag Idiot]

The raising of consciousness should maybe also concern giving a fair hearing to voices of reason. Those which counteract the highminded guilt trippers on the left which tend to mostly just outrage the more seemingly practical minded identified with Orange worldviews. Those in Orange who are constantly triggered by the out of touch bleeding hearts found so often entrenched in SD Green. I don't mean to dramatize or convey cynicism in saying this. Both sides have valid points and each could use more informed, diplomatic representatives to find the common ground.

The fantasies promoted by Disney animations that anthropomorphize animals are perhaps a case in point which confuse so many and create an unnecessary sharp divide. I admit my languaging here is somewhat biased against the left. This admission is given to hopefully add balance and forego editing what I've expressed. I tend to side with the bleeding hearts just as often if not more than I do those of the Orange pov. of which I'm out of and perhaps more familiar with.

Please, speak your mind,,,