Already I am disagreeing with the premise of this chart. I don't believe it has to be one way or the other on several of these things. For example, I want minimum restrictions on my civil rights, but I also want minimum restrictions on my property rights. This latter means I can't be a communist, but I don't see why I couldn't be a good Liberal and want both these things. I have not problem with private ownership of much or most of the available land in the U.S. and I also want a wide range of protected civil rights. I don't see the need for a choice on most of these attributes. Can we not have BOTH a moral society AND and ethical society, for example?
Just do the right thing, and everyone will hate you for not being on their side.
The right thing as I see it? :) I think I would rather just be on everyone's side and let them buy me drinks.
You know, I don't think I agree with it either. with the exception of using the past for "inspiration," there was virtually nothing on the conservative side I liked, but I wasn't too thrilled with everything on the other side either. Far too many absolute statements. Admittedly, I've never been excited about being labeled or boxed or anything else. I know there are principles and ideals on either side I support - some toward the center, some distinctly extreme. With this, I'd just feel confused and vaguely dissatisfied with the limitations on what I was supposed to believe. Plus, they were talking about "public morals" here which is not the same as morals that people use from day to day - or at least how some people use it. Ditto, to a lesser extent, with ethics. The dictionary agrees in that it made no distinction as to the source and considers morals and ethics effectively synonyms. Not a chart I care for.
@Relax MaxFrom a legal standpoint (and using these definitions of morals and ethics), I can't see imposing anything but ethics in the form of laws. Everything beyond what is legal/illegal, I don't see the government has any business teaching or imposing. Enforcing "ethics" as defined here on citizens seems to be the opposite of personal rights. I also get the flavor of something fishy here when separating morals from ethics. Most secular and religious base moral bases have the same core values against violence and thievery and mayhem. What varies is what you exempt from the unacceptable (capital punishment, wartime casualties, abortion, deceptive practices, etc) and the add-ons that largely revolve around trying to regulate sexual conduct which, generally, secular organizations tend to steer clear of unless it involves children or isn't consensual. Or rather, that's how I think it should be. When secular governments start regulating what I should think/read/hear, etc, I feel they've stepped outside their bounds unless it involves real children/rape (not fiction).(The notion that any government is qualified to teach morals and/or ethics makes me want to burst into laughter or tears, actually. Hypocrisy makes me nauseous).IF SOMEONE WANTS guidance for morals/ethics beyond what is legal, you go to church. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. By the way, I absolutely agree that many of these things here shouldn't be either/or. Among other things, I don't see why you can't be considering the future but using the past for lessons learned and inspiration.