Should morality and ethics be kept out of political ideology?

Politics is by definition the practical application of ethics, so no, it shouldn't be left out.

Not according to the amoralist plagues… I mean "tendencies". That's why we need to level contradiction after contradiction against them to expose their bottomless recursive (self-)deceit and how it drives schism.

There is no such thing as keeping 'morals' out of something.

Every objective study you make is in order to rectify the world according to a set of criteria, whatever those criteria may be.

These criteria are always a de facto moral code.

For example, we want communism/ancommunism, because we think capitalism is an inefficient system that stifles productivity by malnourishing and overworking the worker until they are useless at working.

It is still a moral judgement to consider productivity and efficiency something to aspire to. You could say that, I like productivity and efficiency because they appease my own suffering, that is fine, in my opinion, but you are still adding value to yourself and your own happiness that doesn't necessarily exist, only your subjective experience of it really exists. Its only feelings.

Our morals are what we think is right and wrong. No matter if you think that means everything you could possibly do to please your ego is right, you still consider it right.

Every political ideology is essentially a morality code, the two can't be separated.

"Morals" is just another word for commonly held subjective criteria, these criteria vary wildly from community to community so "Morals," can never be objective. It is therefore completely impossible to be immoral. Whatever criteria you set yourself are your morals, they just happen to be different from the overarching consensus. I think this is the case for most people however, there are points where their morals are different from the overarching consensus. For some its more for some its less. The idea that there is some common grand morality that you can therefore be diametrically opposed to is kind of ludicrous.

Even if you want to build your society around completely objective studies like a technocracy claims to, the purpose of these studies will always ultimately be decided by the subjective judgements of one person, or the collective subjective judgements of several people.

Every political ideology is essentially a morality code, the two can't be separated.

"Morals" is just another word for commonly held subjective criteria, these criteria vary wildly from community to community so "Morals," can never be objective. It is therefore completely impossible to be immoral. Whatever criteria you set yourself are your morals, they just happen to be different from the overarching consensus. I think this is the case for most people however, there are points where their morals are different from the overarching consensus. For some its more for some its less. The idea that there is some common grand morality that you can therefore be diametrically opposed to is kind of ludicrous.

Even if you want to build your society around completely objective studies like a technocracy claims to, the purpose of these studies will always ultimately be decided by the subjective judgements of one person, or the collective subjective judgements of several people.

Morality is such a word that it's easy for people to confuse its meaning, or application, specificity.

Be more specific.

Morality and ethics are a manifestation of people's immaterial needs. We're better off taking them into account and weaning people off the morality inserted to them by porky slowly. A should for the sake of the should itself is an opiate of the masses, a spook, ideology, whatever you want to call it, much like nationality, identity, culture, tradition and various others.

You can't have a revolution without a moral foundation. So no.

Fedoraism at its absolute apotheosis

So is this sentence.

Analingus: the post

I mean, they're what porky uses to control the workers. If they're not created by porky, porky is surely benefiting from them. It's better to nullify the spooks to at the very least make those benefiting workers.

It's absolute autism user. It does not follow.

What is it about being critical of capitalism that makes people just go fucking insane? Is it the abyss? Holy shit. I'm getting pretty sick of it.

You respond to every one of my posts reminding me that I eat pussy and I eat ass and making random ironic non sequitur to people, so I don't think the problem so much is theory than it is you being a bit overboard and a little off.

Because it leads to people becoming social pariahs for making banal statements that should be uncontroversial.

madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Cognitive effects of long-term benzodiazepine use.pdf

See what I mean.

Also it's Alazopram you silly rascal

Alprazolam is a benzo doc.

Sorry I'm too busy eating ass and being a slave to eating ass to care about any of your posts

Nothing wrong with eating ass. I for one, welcome it. There is however plenty wrong with being a retarded tripfag solely devoted to derailing all left wing discussions online with smarmy sarcasm and pure gibberish. You don't even understand any theory ffs. Get outta here.

Yes I do.

No, no you do not. Never once have you said anything resembling even a cursory theoretical understanding of any of the topics you stick your nose into.

At least I'm read.

You have Mook and rebel go bother them.

wat
All tripfags get the same treatment. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

Ouch I'm hurt lol

Morality and ethics are the foundation of political ideology. There can be no liberation unless it is intersectional.

The very word implies morality. Very undialectical of you, user