Harm Reduction needs to be the basis or Morality.

That is my position as both a Christian and a Communist. 

Whether an action is truly "Evil" or not should solely be about whether or not it does Harm, no whether or not you find it "Weird" or "Gross".  But unfortunately many who claim to agree with that still seek to define "Harm" in increasingly abstract ways. The Harm has to be tangible and measurable especially if you want to make it a Civil Crime. 

In addition to that, in my view whether someone is a currently a bad person or not is solely determined by whether they are currently doing or inclined to do harmful actions or not.  I don't believe they need to in anyway "make up" for their past Sins, I don't even really think they need to regret them, Anime does a great Job at turning Villains into Heroes without even changing anything about that character's thought process.

Deserved or Earned Redemption is an Oxymoron, the literal definition of the word is about Redeeming a Debt that can't actually be paid off, same with Forgiveness.  

What's funny is people are gonna tell me my attitude can't be a Leftist one because it's the traditional Christian one.  The problem is modern mainstream Christianity is as Conservative as it now because they don't believe that anymore.  They may deny that fact, they may still preach form the Pulpit that all you need to do to be Forgiven is accept Jesus, but when you get into the weeds of their Theology that is utterly contradicted, because they are all either Calvinists or Arminians, they believe either Evil People were Predestined for Damnation by God for the fun of it, or that they all chose to be Evil.  However I view Sin as an illness that needs to be cured not a Crime that needs to be Punished, and Christians who agree with me were the ones who invented Communism and Liberalism long before any Atheists came along.

Leftists are supposed believe in Materialism not Free Will.  There is no value in Punishing people because they undo the harm they caused. 

Materialism and Idealism

 One thing that unintentionally poisons the well of Internet Leftist Discourse is that both of those words (as well as their -ist forms) have more than one meaning, and yet many either only know one meaning, ignorantly conflate the meanings, or are willingly ignorant that others don’t know the other meanings.

Idealism as in the Metaphysics of Platonism and Immanuel Kant has nothing to do with what it means when someone is called an Idealist in contrast to being a Pragmatist or Cynical.  In the latter case Ideal is being used as a synonym for Value or Moral rather then a Platonic Ideal Form.

Likewise Materialist Metaphysics (or lack of metaphysics) has little to do with the “Historical Materialism” of philosophies like Marxism and nothing to do with the Madonna song Material Girl.

You can be Idealistic while still rejecting Philosophical Idealism, and you can be a Historical Materialist while while holding to Idealist Metaphysics.

Materialist Metaphysics is a key pillar of Stoicism, and the main reason I call myself somewhat of a Stoic rather than most anything popularly associated with Stoicism.  While the rejection of anything metaphysical existing is Epicureanism. 

I agree with Historical Materialism but not the more specific Dialectical Materialism which I view as a symptom of Pythagorean Dualism.  And that’s why my status as a Marxist is questionable.

So I’m definitely not a Philosophical Idealist.  How much the other Idealism applies to me is purely subjective.