Greeting from Me to everyone.

Well, debate is a good thing for talking about better output of a given scenario but it doesn't mean necessary that one is 'essentially authorize' to claim whats right and wrong for the general, subscribed to the view that others are just ignorant. In fact, no philosopher and ideologist till today is able to claim having support of full proof of social consensus what they have theorize about. This is because one is bound to differ from another as each one has individual beliefs and hold unique views.

Does that mean one has to assume absolutism right to claim of ones own views as right?

In my opinion, it can't be unitary answer as I can't read others behind the curtain scene for 'Yes' answer. So, there is two answer for it. Yes and No.

Yes, because those who had subscribed to this view has remain as a part of Society (by claiming they are future) rather than realistic contributor to the the Society. History has repeated many times itself to show it as an example.

No, because it is not in the common interest of the society as yes answer view will turn it into anarchy and failure of Society and institutions in the long term. Rather accommodating others view and enabling them to create a generous way of life is what this answer shows.

Ability to think has been a bless for the mankind, and as a nature of curiosity one always wonder about the things as to how, where, why, when and solution. This creates a environment where everyone may or not be agree with each other.

So, to bring a consensus among all stakeholders, till modern era each philosopher has mostly talked about one single purpose:- 'Betterment of mankind.'

As I have previously mention, as a nature of curiosity, all sorts of aspect are considered while evaluating for 'Betterment of Mankind' in theorize. But when it come into practice, these aspects are turn into as a tool for autocratic to authorize his sovereignty over the general while for democratic that are essentially decentralized (as democracy has to many forms too) it turns out to be a prosperity.

So it is upto us what we are choosing as a choice and how we are as a vigilant towards our liberty. In another words 'Liberty is what for one who is vigilant' . It is so much so important to the extent that you can buy, sell, exchange everything with it and thus liberty rewards us as a betterment for mankind.

While Aristotle was trying to explain the best form of government for the people depending on who is ruler and to whom it is directed, he categorically mentioned that it should depend on happiness of the citizens and less emphasis on the wealth of the elite citizens. Essentially, he is advocating the betterment of general citizen.

I will quote his statement from the book VII about Politics:

Happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often found with those who are most highly cultivated in their mind and in their character, and have only a moderate share of external goods, than among those who possess external goods to a useless extent but are deficient in higher qualities.

Coming to conclusion of my article's title - Ideology can be generally define as a set of belief having practical implications of that beliefs. But, What sort of belief and practical implication one hold will always depend on whats intention is behind of holding it.