How is this anything other than self-flattery? It's also a huge moral hazard. Once one defines themselves as "morally superior" to a group of people it becomes easy to justify truly immoral behavior against them.
It seems the only thing this paper demonstrates is that both sides will invest in causes they believe in. It draws the conclusion that liberals support equality more because they support more institutions that talk about equality. How much those institutions actually contribute towards reducing inequality is not measured or discussed.
How is this anything other than self-flattery? It's also a huge moral hazard. Once one defines themselves as "morally superior" to a group of people it becomes easy to justify truly immoral behavior against them.
> The people on the left, while far from perfect, are generally morally superior to those on the right.
Do you have evidence of this claim? If not, your stance is factually incorrect. I have evidence of the opposite [1].
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/
> I have evidence of the opposite.
Do you? [1]
[1] https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcpy.1...
It seems the only thing this paper demonstrates is that both sides will invest in causes they believe in. It draws the conclusion that liberals support equality more because they support more institutions that talk about equality. How much those institutions actually contribute towards reducing inequality is not measured or discussed.
This seems to show the opposite: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29739293/
Feeling more empathy and doing something about it are two very different things.
Liberal =/= leftist
> I have evidence of the opposite
Respectfully, you do not. Giving to charity is not at all the marker of morality, and suggesting that is frankly absurd.