As a non-American, the recent political issues in the USA are very interesting to most of us, even if we do not directly play any role. Perhaps, the reason is the heavy marketing that both sides do, which comes to our timeline given how largely the global network is affected by the American network. Hence, irrespective of the political system in our country, most of us are indeed very interested and pick sides between the two. After listening to many debates and discussions (e.g., Charlie Kirk vs 25 liberal students is an interesting one), I have an idea about the main reason that the two sides disagree, which is the distinct source of morality each side follows.
When listing the opinions and beliefs of the two sides on issues such as freedom of speech, abortion, diversity, and racism, it somehow becomes clear that those opinions and beliefs are different regarding their very foundation. In short, the values that formulate those opinions and beliefs are different in such a way that they are reflected in the ideas of each side. I think that, although haven’t seen any side to agree on it, the source of morality is the primary reason that both parties do not compromise.
On the one side, most of the conservatives in the USA are strict Christians and believe that the conservative Abrahamic values — the values that have been enforced by three main monotheistic religions, including Christianity — have governed humanity for many centuries and are essential for the proper functioning of society going forward. If deviate from those values, we are at a very high risk of societal collapse. Some people may not necessarily believe in the supernatural foundation of these beliefs (i.e., God) yet may strongly support the conservation of those values.. We shouldn't purposefully murder a fetus because it is a breathing human being. We shouldn’t accept LGBT because it is a sin, and etc.
On the other hand, the morality of the progressives does not necessarily follow every aspect of religious morality. Even though many of the progressives still claim that they are Christians, their moral standing is strongly different from the morality originally proposed in the Bible. Kate Cohen, who officially claimed to be an atheist, depicts this moral deviation more clearly and argues that many Americans are indeed atheists despite calling themselves religious. According to many of the modern non-religious moral scientists (i.e., Richard Dawkins), the morality we should have must be, quote, “thought out, reasoned, argued, and discussed”. This means that we put the fate of morality in the hands of science (i.e., intelligent design) rather than an omnipotent being (i.e., God).
Moreover, I have recently seen a short video that signals this significant distinction more clearly, which was a debate between a Christian and an atheist.
Atheist: I worked with murderers and paedophiles.
Christian: Are they absolutely wrong?
Atheist: No, they are intersubjectively wrong.
The Christian further puts all his emphasis on the word “absolutely”, and the atheist kind of gets reluctant to deny it directly. But the wording itself is a nice indicator of how different the source of morality each has is. “Absolutely” relies on the absolute morality granted by God. It is absolute in a way that we cannot even think of denying it, let alone giving arguments or having any doubts against it. It must be obeyed unconditionally. On the contrary, the word “intersubjectively” means that some opinions are made subjectively but they are accepted so collectively and widely that they act like objective. This simply illustrated the process where we discuss and agree on a morality (subjective) and collectively accept it (intersubjective).
All in all, the reason that there is such a political polarisation in many societies (e.g., Turkiye, EU countries, etc.) is the source of morality, and in my opinion, it is practically impossible to break it without first validating the existence of God. If there really is God, we have angered him by trying to deny its morality and constructing our own. If there is no God, we wasted so much time and talent believing in an absolute lie. Picking a side in that game is dangerous even at an individual level. However, if we look at the history of humankind, although we have followed a single set of moral values for a least the last 2000 years, we have made much progress within that period, and we continue to do so. So, perhaps there is a way to be progressive by conserving moral values at the same time. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”. This moderate approach is however not enforced enough as people are more likely to be radical in their opinion, which then affects the strategy of the dominant political bodies, given in a democratic system, majority rule. To sum up, my main concern is whether societies can find common ground despite differing moral sources, or whether these differences will always continue to polarize us.
Comments