If it satisfies, then you're claiming the ends justify the means. Lots of mischief and tragedy has been rationalized in that way throughout history.
> I don't find that either side in the political spectrum can legitimately claim a moral high ground
Ah, well, I think we could complain that the moral high ground no longer exists. We've spent the past 100 years telling ourselves that there is no objective truth and therefore there is no moral basis for anything.
"Family values" on the right is the ideological shadow of traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. And "identity politics" is the ideology of some twisted-up cultural marxism that seems to hold "being nice" up as the highest virtue. Both left's and right's claims lack all conviction or consistency and are too flimsy to represent any kind of moral high ground.
I suppose a lack of specificity means you're less of a target for your political foes and you have fewer concrete campaign promises to make and keep with the voters.
I'd say that conveniently, this lack of moral high ground allows snaky politicians to passionately proclaim whatever obscenity they fancy is moral since people hunger for a framework. Damn the consequences, the world is their political science petri dish.
All major policy proposals are described in terms of the victims that will be saved, regardless of left or right. You can't get the public to back anything unless you make it personal.