Yes, and I often do it on a one on one basis, rather than directly at a group of people (although I've only done it once, which is way too little compared to the former).

better to be fired than getting the socialist version

I would more likely say Lawful Evil in D&D terms, and Awful Evil in everyday life. Just like every other politician.

And Lawful Good person would try to fight slavery using society and it's systems. Meanwhile, I could see Chaotic Good person would use illegal methods to fight slavery and they wouldn't believe in societal structures and rules. So, welcome to Lawful Good alignment IRL. Personally, I am Chaotic Neutral.

Well said. :)

Professional deformation: I would ask you to provide your definition of "ideology". I would also ask why are you engaging in discussion of "right vs wrong", if those are ideological questions by necessity (which is demonstrably incorrect).

Yeah, i pulled that right from a dictionary, too. While i do believe in objective morality (there are a few different potential sources that have been argued over the years, not all of which are religious), i also acknowledge that these have to be accepted first, given that "right and wrong" are exclusively human (unless we were to include other forms of equivalently or greater intelligent life, which have not been proven to exist) ideas, thus need to actually be accepted in the first place. Very simple: the various presupposed ideologies are not necessarily incompatible in this regard. And, if you pay close attention, you'll notice i'm implicitly calling out "separation of church and state." It would seem that humanity has failed to truly keep them separate.

Then we use similar terms, though I wrote about ideology primarily as distorted consciousness caused by individual belonging to a a certain social group, which is one of two uses made by Karl Marx. And I am very afraid that different ideologies are very incompatible when moral values are concerned (to say nothing about morality itself being ideology).

And questions of right and wrong aren't necessarily ideological, since you can find two members of same ideological group(s) who are still in disagreement about what is right and wrong. This make me believe that ideology itself isn't only factor here.

Depends on the issue being highlighted. A Christian and a Jew might differ on the idea of consumption of certain animals, but would likely agree on something like murder or adultery. A nazi and a communist might agree on the concept of the ends justifying the means, but they likely aren't going to see eye on eye on the role of the state. An anarchist and a libertarian might see eye to eye on the morality of restriction of individual sovereignty, but are not likely to agree on the morality of taxation. At the end of the day, most people are not simple subscribed to one singular ideology, and among those, each person prioritizes on major levels, but then sub-levels might elevate one idea from one or another, and so forth. There's also "transmission errors" in ideological "education" as well, leading to differences. Obviously this does mean that it's more than simply "ideology," but why bother looking for crumbs instead of a large slice of that pie?

EDIT: To be clear, i'm still saying it's ideology, however there are factors that make demonstrating predictive value itself somewhat difficult. As they say, humans act first and justify later. I certianly disagree with that (as demonstrated by people planning), but it does seem to be the default pattern.

don't you not see? any system is designed to keep the plebs in control no matter then name.
some systems hide or better then the other

Because devil is in the details, as they say, and larger picture is defined by those crumbs and vice versa. Also, if question of right and wrong can't be reduced to purely ideological conflict, then it's essence would have to lay elsewhere. And that would be quite a shame, considering I reduced morality to ideology in my paper. Also, humans don't act first and justify later - they justify first, then act later.

Good and evil isnt fun, Karma is more fun.

Should CDPR make a game about Karma? Maybe something for Witcher 4. Not sure if the plot has been written already. I cant remember any game including Karma.

Ultima 5 and 6 have a (mostly) hidden stat called Karma, which increases when you do certain virtuous deeds and decreases when you do non-virtuous deeds. (It's basically a simplification of Ultima 4's approach.)

Shadowrun (SNES) has a stat called Karma which is used to boost your stats and skills (and takes the place of XP in that game). I have a strong suspicion that other Shadowrun games do this as well. (Could someone confirm? Specifically, is Karma used this way in the Sega Genesis game, the more recent PC games, or the tabletop RPG that the games are based off?)

I believe it's the same thing as SNES Shadowrun - Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong have Karma as those games version of skillpoints, used for buying new skills or ability scores.

Fallout games up to "Fallout" 4 also had karma, as a morality meter.