I welcome the mods to move this topic if they wish. To be honest it could go under politics, or society too.
I usually don't request this, but to discuss this topic you really need to read THIS. Note: it is from a Left perspective, but I think people of all philosophies will see the value in this five page article. It shows why voting Republican isn't what too many Left of center folks believe it is: idiots voting against their own interests and societies. Indeed, I found it pretty sympathetic and revealing. Of course the opposite is also true... which is why I don't even bother with threads here at V that call Dems "idiots..." or Reps for that matter.
I do have several disagreements with his discussion. I think his analysis breaks down when it comes to the current state of Capitalism; which can be very "individual" centered, or how one wins an election which I would say the Right has command of "whatever it takes" concept. In fact, I have several disagreements with the author... but I'll let you have at it and join in when I wish.
Please note: I would post the article itself but it's so long I don't think it proper. But here's a taste...
Further on it the article I really enjoy his description of those on the Right using a better, more complete, EQ-like device when it comes to this topic. And it gets a lot more in-depth than even that: discussing many models of morality; so you'll really miss the core of the discussion if you don't click. This article gives us all a lot to think about."For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group -- college students at Penn -- consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog)."
"This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like 'it's wrong because ... um ... eating dog meat would make you sick' or 'it's wrong to use the flag because ... um ... the rags might clog the toilet.'"
I'm also going to include this site. I scored between Liberal and Conservative in all categories except Authority, which they both scored higher that I did. (I've always felt authority is to be obeyed much of the time, but suspect almost all of the time.) This was on the "morals foundations" test. That's as far as I got because this Mac wouldn't load the next one.
Good luck! Good morals? Well... whatever.