A Critique of Political Activists
A political activist by definition is someone who takes a firm political position, and a firm political position is a firm moral position.
Moral truth can be difficult, but even the people will little moral wisdom have the intuition that moral righteousness depends on the consensus of a future, morally enlightened generation. This truth will often be verbalized with something like, “I’m on the right side of (future) history.”
The question is how will morality converge to form this future, moral consensus among the morally enlightened? Will it be done through persuasion or force?
Here is where many political activists deserve criticism. The morally minded person (MMP) will realize that the answer must be persuasion rather than force, and they will hold themselves to this moral truth.
As a result, when the MMP takes a firm political position and discovers there are many people who are not persuaded to take the same position and many even oppose it, the only option for the MMP is to soften their position from a firm one to one of doubt and humility. This doesn’t mean force mustn’t be allowed until humanity has achieved full, moral consensus, but it does mean the use of force, even the mild versions, should be seen as a form of negative judgment on the enforcing side.
This negative view of force is foreign to many political activists. Too many people take no issue with being on the “winning” side of cancel culture. They justify it by telling themselves they are on the right side of the issue, but even if they are more right than their opponents, moral wisdom dictates that they should pull back in humility since persuasion has failed, or at least they must accept the negative judgment from their conscience.
The overall result on the political landscape is that the most morally minded people are prone to withdraw from the political (via their willingness to accept their utter failure in persuasion) and, generally, those who are most politically active are the moral lightweights. These people are either willing to use force or are, at the very least, in denial about their failure to persuade sufficiently.
24 Replies
Your post isn't really a critique of political activists, but more a critique of a very specific form of political activism.
Anyways, it has always been the case that being loud has been the only way for some activists to reach the general populace. I find it hard to criticize this approach. While it has been used by groups to promote horrifying ideology, it has also been used by groups to front ideology which in modern democracies today are seen as essential human rights.
What has perhaps changed is that social media rewards being politically loud by a wide margin, and it buries a lot of the stuff which is not loud. Nuance is not very engaging, so it is often replaced by provocation and controversy. While some are getting tired and exhausted by the barrage of headlines and slogans designed to make you angry with or at the poster, we're still a long way from the ship turning around.
I think in the old media landscape in the decades prior to social media it was a lot about connections and networking to reach a wide audience. Then in the dawn of social media, we had a brief period where it was a fairly open marketplace of ideas. Now, with established influencers and punditry it is back to connections and networking. However, it is an even more of a closed and dogmatic landscape than it was before, but with a system of engagement which creates an illusion of inclusion.
Anyways, it has always been the case that being loud has been the only way for some activists to reach the general populace. I find it hard to criticize this approach.
you find it hard to criticize disruptive behavior?
are you capable to critical thinking?
Do you allow the child you Love to lay on the floor screaming about wanting cookies in Walmart... knowing that those same cookies are detrimental to their life?
do you give them those cookies and call it a win?
stop making idiotic assessments as if they are policy truisms.
The critique is more about how they don’t account for the persuasion vs force factor.
All they focus on is if they are more right (in their mind) on the specific issue rather than about HOW the future, full consensus is achieved. Too many of them are fine with a “by any means necessary” approach.
Again, this includes even mild uses of enforcement such as moderating internet spaces.
No doubt many haven’t even considered that they are “taking an L” whenever they use mild enforcement on an adult because force is acceptable and necessary in the socialization of children.
This is why it’s essential to realize that the future, moral consensus has to be attained solely through persuasion. Meaning, every adult who forms the eventual, unified morality is doing so because they deem it right.
I get that this seems far-fetched, but it’s true. The morally minded person will stretch himself to hold this truth. As a result, each time he uses enforcement on an adult, he will accept the reality that he has created a debt for himself.
The morally enlightened who eventually attain this future consensus, which we all deeply desire, will have gotten there because they each accepted the debt.
A political activist by definition is someone who takes a firm political position, and a firm political position is a firm moral position.
this ^ statement, is misguided... setting up a polarized tribal view.
can one not have a specific political ideology and still be amoral?
ones that consider a political position as a basis for morality are misguided and have a juvenile perspective.
A political activist by definition is someone who takes a firm political position, and a firm political position is a firm moral position.
Moral truth can be difficult, but even the people will little moral wisdom have the intuition that moral righteousness depends on the consensus of a future, morally enlightened generation. This truth will often be verbalized with something like, “I’m on the right side of (future) history.”
The question is how will morality converge to form this future, moral co
By saying we are converging on moral truth you’re presupposing that there is moral truth to converge on.
The reality is that politics is a struggle between competing interests in society, and if you have certain interests but don’t
participate you are allowing those who oppose your interests to have a lower burden to overcome to achieve theirs.
It’s not zero-sum because our societies are not zero-sum, but the success of some view is surely at the benefit of another view.
If righteousness doesn’t apply, then it’s just arbitrary power struggles. Is this your view?
What do you mean by arbitrary? It would be a struggle with respect to the goals and values of moral agents. Those are not arbitrary in the sense that means to be intended by you (aka without reason, ad hoc, random).
What do you mean by arbitrary? It would be a struggle with respect to the goals and values of moral agents. Those are not arbitrary in the sense that means to be intended by you (aka without reason, ad hoc, random).
I mean that you don’t believe there is an ultimate good being sought which would be universally agreed upon as the ultimate good once attained.
Without this belief, there is no possibility of a future, lasting consensus.
Ideas like ‘truth’ and ‘goodness’ become arbitrary.
I mean that you don’t believe there is an ultimate good being sought which would be universally agreed upon as the ultimate good once attained.
Without this belief, there is no possibility of a future, lasting consensus.
Ideas like ‘truth’ and ‘goodness’ become arbitrary.
Progressives, do you not realize this belief — the idea of a universally agreed upon ultimate good — is what you are embodying when you identify as progressive?
Progressives, do you not realize this belief — the idea of a universally agreed upon ultimate good — is what you are embodying when you identify as progressive?
What does it mean to be a progressive?
Grok
Spoiler
To be a progressive generally means advocating for change and reform, often with a focus on improving society through social, political, or economic advancements. Progressives typically support ideas like equality, social justice, environmental protection, and government intervention to address systemic issues—think healthcare access, workers' rights, or reducing income inequality. The term’s roots go back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, like the Progressive Era in the U.S., where folks pushed against corruption, monopolies, and outdated norms.
It’s not a monolith, though. What "progressive" looks like depends on context—cultural, historical, or even personal. Some might see it as championing universal policies (e.g., Medicare for All), while others lean into identity-focused activism or tech-driven solutions. Critics often argue it can veer into overreach or idealism that ignores practical trade-offs.
You asking for a vibe check on the term, or do you want me to dig into something specific about it?
It has to be more than that. The idea of progress implies a future, universally agreed upon concept of the ultimate good. Otherwise, the idea of progress is arbitrary.
Spoiler
You’re digging into the meat of it—fair point. If "progress" just means change for the sake of change, it’s a hollow buzzword. The idea of being a progressive does hinge on some vision of an "ultimate good," but here’s the rub: that vision isn’t universally agreed upon, even among progressives themselves. It’s more like a loose coalition of bets on what a better future could look like, shaped by values that shift with time and place.
Historically, progressives have often tied their idea of "good" to enlightenment vibes—reason, science, and human rights pushing us toward a more just, prosperous world. Think of it as a secular faith: industrialize, educate, democratize, and we’ll climb toward some peak of human flourishing. The Progressive Era folks, for instance, saw child labor laws and antitrust busting as steps toward a society where power and wealth don’t choke out fairness. Post-WWII, it morphed into big-state liberalism—FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society—where progress meant security and opportunity for all, measured in GDP and life expectancy.
But you’re right to poke at the cracks. What’s the endgame? Is it a world of perfect equality? Sustainability? Individual freedom maxed out? Progressives often split here—some chase utopian equity (everyone ends up at the same finish line), others a meritocratic ladder with softer landings. The "ultimate good" gets fuzzy because it’s filtered through human messiness—culture, ideology, even biology. Marxists might say it’s a classless society; green activists might say it’s a planet that doesn’t cook us. X posts I’ve scanned show this tension: one user calls progress "liberation from tradition," another "a woke trap to erase history." No consensus.
The arbitrariness you’re sniffing out comes from this: without a fixed North Star, progress can feel like a vibe shift dressed up as a philosophy. If it’s not tethered to something concrete—say, a measurable outcome like "no one starves" or "carbon hits zero"—it risks being whatever the loudest voices say it is. Yet progressives would argue the flexibility’s a feature, not a bug—adaptability beats dogma in a chaotic world.
Want me to zero in on a specific progressive flavor—like the socialist wing or the tech optimists—or unpack how this plays out in real-time debates?
I realize this progressive vision isn’t agreed upon currently, but it must be agreed upon in the future by a morally enlightened version of humanity. Otherwise, progress is truly arbitrary.
Spoiler
You’re pushing this to its logical edge, and I respect the insistence on pinning it down. You’re saying that for "progress" to mean anything coherent, it has to aim toward a future where humanity—elevated by some moral clarity—agrees on what the ultimate good actually is. Without that eventual consensus, it’s just a scattershot of competing guesses, and the whole concept unravels into arbitrariness. Let’s wrestle with that.
If we take your premise—progress needing a future, morally enlightened humanity to retroactively validate it—it implies a couple of things. First, progress isn’t just a process; it’s a prophecy. It assumes we’re stumbling toward a point where our descendants, wiser and better, look back and say, “Yeah, that was the path.” The "ultimate good" becomes a kind of finish line—maybe a world free of suffering, or one where every individual’s potential is maxed out, or where we’ve cracked some universal ethic that feels as undeniable as gravity. Second, it suggests that today’s progressives are betting on that future agreement, even if they can’t define it now. They’re like architects drafting blueprints for a building they’ll never see finished, hoping the next crew doesn’t tear it down.
But here’s where it gets dicey: what if that enlightened consensus never comes? Humanity’s track record isn’t exactly a straight line to moral unity—tribalism, power grabs, and clashing values keep us fractured. Even if we imagine a future where tech or philosophy “solves” morality (say, AI ethics councils or a global brain trust), who’s to say it won’t still split along lines we can’t predict? One camp’s utopia—total equality—might be another’s dystopia—stifled ambition. The progressive bet, then, is that history arcs toward a shared vision, not just a louder megaphone for one side. That’s a hell of a leap.
Philosophers like Hegel come to mind here—he saw history as a dialectic grinding toward absolute truth, a universal reason we’d all eventually nod at. Progressives might implicitly buy that: each reform, each protest, is a brick in the road to that future. But Nietzsche would scoff—morality’s a human construct, not a cosmic target, and waiting for universal agreement is chasing a ghost. X chatter reflects this tension too—some users frame progress as inevitable (“science will save us”😉, others as a delusion (“it’s just power games with better PR”😉.
If you’re right, though—that progress only holds water if a morally enlightened humanity agrees on the good later—it puts today’s progressives in a bind. They’re stuck selling a vision they can’t fully sketch, banking on a future handshake that might never happen. Without that, yeah, it’s arbitrary—direction masquerading as destiny. Maybe the best they can do is pick tangible waypoints (end poverty, stop climate collapse) and hope the dots connect later.
You want to drill deeper into whether that future consensus is even plausible, or test this against a specific progressive goal?
Do you agree without this possibility of convergence, progress becomes arbitrary, and therefore, meaningless?
Spoiler
Yeah, I’m with you on this one. Without some possibility of convergence—where humanity eventually lands on a shared understanding of the "ultimate good"—progress does start to look arbitrary. If it’s just endless change without a coherent direction, it’s less a journey and more a random walk. The word "progress" implies movement *toward* something—a better state, a higher peak—but if there’s no agreement, even in theory, on what that peak is, then it’s just motion for motion’s sake. Meaning drains out fast when you can’t tell if you’re climbing or just wandering.
Think of it like a game with no win condition. You can move the pieces, rack up points, but if no one knows what “winning” looks like—not now, not ever—it’s hard to call it anything but noise. Progressives might argue they’re playing the long game, that the rules will clarify later, but without that future anchor, their push feels like a preference dressed up as a principle. One group’s “forward” (say, collectivism) could be another’s “backward” (say, individualism), and with no convergence on the horizon, who’s to say which is which? It’s all just vibes at that point.
The counter might be that progress can still mean something local—improving life by practical metrics like health, literacy, or peace, even without a grand finale. But you’re right to challenge that: if those gains don’t ladder up to a bigger, agreed-upon good, they’re just patches on a sinking ship. Arbitrary isn’t just directionless—it’s purposeless. Convergence, at least as a possibility, is what keeps the idea from collapsing into a shrug.
You’ve got me nodding here. Want to push this further—maybe test if history gives any hint of that convergence forming, or poke at why it might never happen?
I mean that you don’t believe there is an ultimate good being sought which would be universally agreed upon as the ultimate good once attained.
I don’t have any reason to believe that such a thing exists and many good reason to believe that it doesn’t exist.
Without this belief, there is no possibility of a future, lasting consensus.
There is nothing logically impossible about having a future, lasting consensus that is based off of people converging on certain sets of goals and attitudes.
Ideas like ‘truth’ and ‘goodness’ become arbitrary.
Epistemic norms have instrumental oughts that supply our reasons for following them. Goodness is not arbitrary, they’re based off of our goals, preferences, and attitudes. Do you mean that there are certain contingent states of affairs that lead us to having certain views based off of things that could have failed to happen in some possible world?
I don’t have any reason to believe that such a thing exists and many good reason to believe that it doesn’t exist.
It’s a desire / belief which is, at least initially, beyond rationality. You have to discover it through introspection.
My claim is that it’s universal and it drives political engagement, especially among progressives. It needs to be made conscious or people get stuck.
It’s a desire / belief which is, at least initially, beyond rationality. You have to discover it through introspection.
My claim is that it’s universal and it drives political engagement, especially among progressives. It needs to be made conscious or people get stuck.
Yes I understand that is the claim on the table.
However the very existence of a supposed moral progress implies that at one time, there was such and such a society that didn’t have those views that viewed themselves as morally justified. How can the existence of moral disagreement be used to promote the existence of an objective morality, one that should be normative upon reflection (and if it’s not normative, then what is it? descriptive?)
Yes I understand that is the claim on the table.
However the very existence of a supposed moral progress implies that at one time, there was such and such a society that didnÂ’t have those views that viewed themselves as morally justified. How can the existence of moral disagreement be used to promote the existence of an objective morality, one that should be normative upon reflection (and if itÂ’s not normative, then what is it? descriptive?)
It’s subjective but universal and must only be actualized via persuasion (everyone must willingly agree).
There isn’t an objective morality which is attainable by the few. The fact that not everyone agrees must place doubt on the morally justified. It’s only when all agree can any individual truly feel secure and justified.
So when someone is speaking normatively, saying you ought to do this, the only way the suggestion can be truly justified is if, not only the person receiving it will later affirm it in the future from an enlightened POV, but every other human being will as well. If just one person disagrees, then success has not been achieved.
You can see this desire present throughout history in utopian projects as well as in genocidal horrors.
Trying to eradicate or suppress the desire will not work. We have to contend with it fully and consciously.
Does this address what you were asking?
A political activist by definition is someone who takes a firm political position, and a firm political position is a firm moral position.
Moral truth can be difficult, but even the people will little moral wisdom have the intuition that moral righteousness depends on the consensus of a future, morally enlightened generation. This truth will often be verbalized with something like, “I’m on the right side of (future) history.”
The question is how will morality converge to form this future, moral
Emphasis mine. I have to question this premise. Some morally minded people see force and the efficient means to achieving their goals. And they have strong arguments. From Uncle Tom's Cabin to peaceful marches to favorable media coverage, all the efforts to make people less racist didn't get colleges integrated. Ultimately the National Guard had to be called to get it done. You might say yeah, but persuasion got the right politicians elected to send the National Guard. But really, when you look into it, it was the threat of continued and worsening race riots that actually brought the politicians to the bargaining table.
Many morally minded people understand this, that nonviolence doesn't get you very far when you are the dissident or one who wants change in a direction that the powerful aren't incentivized to pursue. I can give you many examples if you want.
Emphasis mine. I have to question this premise. Some morally minded people see force and the efficient means to achieving their goals. And they have strong arguments. From Uncle Tom's Cabin to peaceful marches to favorable media coverage, all the efforts to make people less racist didn't get colleges integrated. Ultimately the National Guard had to be called to get it done. You might say yeah, but persuasion got the right politicians elected to send the National Guard. But really, when you look
I don’t disagree with this, but I wasn’t talking about not using force in achieving immediate goals. I was talking about not using force to achieve the ultimate end state.
This doesn’t mean force mustn’t be allowed until humanity has achieved full, moral consensus, but it does mean the use of force, even the mild versions, should be seen as a form of negative judgment on the enforcing side.
I acknowledge that here, that the use of force is sometimes necessary, but it should be combined with a debt that you, as the enforcer, must now carry.
It’s subjective but universal and must only be actualized via persuasion (everyone must willingly agree).
There isn’t an objective morality which is attainable by the few. The fact that not everyone agrees must place doubt on the morally justified. It’s only when all agree can any individual truly feel secure and justified.
Actually no, I don’t think even a temporal universal agreement (eg at t0 everyone agrees p is true) should allow people to feel secure that there is such a justification. Reason being, I don’t think that if we removed every single life from the planet and left only one person that this means their morality was the objective morality.
What we would want to say is that prior to apprehension, there existed some moral imperative that is not just in principle discoverable, but also that it compels you to it by its apprehension. What that would look like I can’t say (maybe the Platonic Form of the Good). But I don’t think it looks like universal agreement.
If anything we would want to say the opposite. Even despite a universal agreement on some norm, this doesn’t create an objective norm.
Some other proposals for how to instantiate a real morality would be that it is what is to the benefit of the good person a la Aristotle. That would be someway to explain the compulsion. But this just pushes it back to why we can’t get an agreement on those proposed virtues.
So when someone is speaking normatively, saying you ought to do this, the only way the suggestion can be truly justified is if, not only the person receiving it will later affirm it in the future from an enlightened POV, but every other human being will as well. If just one person disagrees, then success has not been achieved.
But the enlightenment mechanism is itself a bit queer. So now instead of answering my question about moral ontology now I have a question about moral epistemology as well. So rather than clarifying it became even less clear.
Does this address what you were asking?
I suppose what I’m driving at here is that when you set morality over and against politics such that politics is not possible without true understanding, it paradoxically makes it easier for people who don’t care about morality (in the more practical sense) to have free reign in the contemporary debates about morals.
I don’t think this is particularly good for society in the long run that our best ethical thinkers are afraid to enter into politics because they don’t have all the answers. And since one of the core elements of your argument is the notion that there is a right answer and we should be wary of engaging without certain knowledge of it, I’m attacking the notion of this “right answer”.
Actually no, I don’t think even a temporal universal agreement (eg at t0 everyone agrees p is true) should allow people to feel secure that there is such a justification. Reason being, I don’t think that if we removed every single life from the planet and left only one person that this means their morality was the objective morality.
What we would want to say is that prior to apprehension, there existed some moral imperative that is not just in principle discoverable, but also that it compels you
You seem to be filtering all of this through your rational intellect at this point, which I get why, but reality is very stubborn, so we’re going to have to leave it here.
You seem to be filtering all of this through your rational intellect at this point, which I get why, but reality is very stubborn, so we’re going to have to leave it here.
I mean this is the fundamental point this whole thread turns on. If you can’t explain or at least give an ostensive definition of what it is you mean by objective morality then your argument fails.
Progressives, do you not realize this belief — the idea of a universally agreed upon ultimate good — is what you are embodying when you identify as progressive?
Other political groups embody the same belief, even it's not expressed in their name/label. But yeah...
“Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.”
“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
Anyways, it has always been the case that being loud has been the only way for some activists to reach the general populace. I find it hard to criticize this approach. While it has been used by groups to promote horrifying ideology, it has also been used by groups to front ideology which in modern democracies today are seen as essential human rights...
you find it hard to criticize disruptive behavior?
are you capable to critical thinking?Do you allow the child you Love to lay on the floor screaming about wanting cookies in Walmart... knowing that those same cookies are detrimental to their life?
do you give them those cookies and call it a win?
Is that disruptive child a metaphor for the American Revolution or the 2020 riots?
Loaded question after "Walmart..."
you find it hard to criticize disruptive behavior?
are you capable to critical thinking?
Do you allow the child you Love to lay on the floor screaming about wanting cookies in Walmart... knowing that those same cookies are detrimental to their life?
do you give them those cookies and call it a win?
stop making idiotic assessments as if they are policy truisms.
A lot of the rights you and I enjoy are the result of "disruptive behavior" and people who took it upon themselves to break the rules, some through disobedience and others through revolution.
Heck, a lot of the dignified statesmen we in "the west" associate with our first democratic laws and constitutions were young students and legal minds loudly throwing out their ideas in text and speech in a state of near constant inebriation, while hooked on radical ideas about constitutional liberalism.
And I can promise you that the monarchists and traditionalists spoke about both the former and the latter with words that translate pretty much exactly to your argument here.
A lot of the rights you and I enjoy are the result of "disruptive behavior" and people who took it upon themselves to break the rules, some through disobedience and others through revolution.
Heck, a lot of the dignified statesmen we in "the west" associate with our first democratic laws and constitutions were young students and legal minds loudly throwing out their ideas in text and speech in a state of near constant inebriation, while hooked on radical ideas about constitutional liberalism.
And
My intention isn’t to shame people who have deemed it necessary to use force when persuasion wasn’t viable. I’m saying, from a place of honest detachment about how reality works, even in these situations, a debt is incurred.
I am shaming those who are quick to use force when they haven’t tried persuasion. Especially when they ignore and deny the debt for using force.
I’m not a pacifist, but I have accepted my debt for the force I’ve used and continue to use.
Edit to add: This thread isn’t about raising children. It’s concerning adult behavior.
