A question regarding law and society?

[Curious George]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

 

[Grandliseur]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

While I cannot see into all the corners this could go, I see one.

Humanity is made up of two sexes, genders, the male and female. The union of the two provide us with the children that continue our kind by procreating according to ancient customs across the many nations no matter the languages, customs, or borders separating us even from ancient times.
It is therefore my belief that the homosexual forcing of marriage of males with males, females with males is an unholy union even without taking religious values into consideration. Simply viewing what exists naturally, I will not accept their definition or the laws definition of this unholy union as being anything close to marriage. I will not let others impose on me this one thing. Others can do as they like, call me all kinds of names, etc. But, their calling this marriage is an abomination.

That they engage in whatever sexual activities they want to - is an entirely different question. People do as they want to and always have. Their actions do not affect me, but making their union into marriage does. And, that belief is unacceptable to me, and shall not be accepted.

 

[David T]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

Which ones do you not already?

 

[Enoch07]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

The answer is none.

Would I love it if others had my beliefs and joined in with me? Yes

But I would never force or impose my beliefs on anyone, so long as no one tries to force or impose their beliefs on to me.

 

[sayak83]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

I fully believe that you should not attempt to cause me pain or suffering. I am going to impose this belief of mine on you.

 

[Augustus]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

Going by the thread title, do you mean in a societal context? As in which of my beliefs should I desire that society enshrines into law?

Ultimately we all must make a decision on the unit granted primacy as regard to rights in numerous situations: the degree to which they are collectivist or individual.

Blasphemy laws or free speech? Marriage equality or between a man and a woman only? Corporate regulations or laissez-faire?

In this sense we all believe we have the right to impose certain closely held beliefs on others.

 

[sun rise]

I believe people should not murder, steal, torture and rape. I'm perfectly happy to impose those beliefs on one and all.

 

[Jumi]

I believe people should not murder, steal, torture and rape. I'm perfectly happy to impose those beliefs on one and all.

This. I would also add equality of treatment for all.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The moral justifications for brushing your teeth, pooping past 20:00 and eating spinach every 6 hours raw.

These are moral actions society must perform or face barbarism as no creamy chocolate turtle shall see the porcelain throne before midnight.

 

[bobhikes]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked this in another thread. I am curious about your thoughts on this individual question and thought to bring the question here instead of derailing.

If there is already a recent thread on it, admin feel free to delete.

I have to agree with @David T you are probably imposing them on me in judgement at minimum right now. For instance I abhor lying and when I can prove a person lies to me, they lose my respect, I don't trust them, I don't want to be around them anymore and I'll confront them about it. I am imposing my beliefs on them.

I don't like cursing and if a person curses a lot around me my go to is I always tell my kids that imo only people with low intelligence use curse words because they don't know proper words to use. It is very effective and I am imposing my beliefs.

 

[Curious George]

While I cannot see into all the corners this could go, I see one....

Is it fair to abstract this concept to make a general rule? You think people ought not impose beliefs on others which fundamentally contradict how those others see the world.

The problem here is that we can have mutually exclusive beliefs. Given your example, we can have:
Person A's belief: Any two consenting adults ought to be free to engage in a marriage that is recognized.

Person B's belief: Marriages can only exist between a man and a woman.

How do we resolve that tension?

 

[Curious George]

Which ones do you not already?

I did not ask which ones am I imposing, I am asking which ones ought I impose.

An example of a closely held belief of mine which I do not impose upon you is that I am a capable person.

The two extremes here are all and none. These extremes are easy to address. "All" allows for mutually exclusive beliefs, and "none" contradicts itself.

The answer is then somewhere in between. I am looking for the line. Where do you believe that line is?

 

[Curious George]

The answer is none.

Would I love it if others had my beliefs and joined in with me? Yes

But I would never force or impose my beliefs on anyone, so long as no one tries to force or impose their beliefs on to me.

None is contradictory. That we ought not impose beliefs is itself a belief that we are then suggesting we impose.

The last statement however better captures the sentiment. There is a tension that results from existing with others. This tension must be addressed in some fashion.

 

[Curious George]

I fully believe that you should not attempt to cause me pain or suffering. I am going to impose this belief of mine on you.

This is interesting. Pain and suffering are subjective. How do we draw lines with these subjective concepts? And what of the instances where someone causes pain and suffering and will continue to cause pain and suffering? Should the imposition of this belief also include causing pain and suffering? In other words, is it contradictory to punish someone with pain and suffering in order to impose this belief?

 

[Grandliseur]

Is it fair to abstract this concept to make a general rule? You think people ought not impose beliefs on others which fundamentally contradict how those others see the world.

The problem here is that we can have mutually exclusive beliefs. Given your example, we can have:
Person A's belief: Any two consenting adults ought to be free to engage in a marriage that is recognized.

Person B's belief: Marriages can only exist between a man and a woman.

How do we resolve that tension?

Some things cannot be resolved, nor agreed upon. Everyone is free to engage in any sexual activity no matter what, though at times they might want to hide what they are doing from the legal authorities. In regard to adults, many sexual practices are optional, and none can prevent this from happening.

However, when some want the explicit approval of society of their actions, they turn to counterfeiting the definitions we have. This is nothing new, but it is a tool by those who cannot get approval from some so as to wrench power of approval of their actions no matter the cost.

Thus gay which used to mean a joyous type activity became hijacked to mean homosexuality, and now marriage has become an abomination.
Why, if these people want to have sex with same gender persons can they not just keep this defined as what it is? Because they are ashamed of their abominations, and now want to force everyone to approve of this by redefining what it is to be 'gay' and what it is to be 'married'.

Having accomplished the wrenching, the forcing of definitions - to be redefined, they now feel better because of having violated not only their partners but our entire society. Having thus brought all society down to their base levels, they feel lifted up, approved of, and go off trying to put down those who refuse to approve of this debasement. This is done by means of all powers they can bring to bear on this.

Just like I read here today, though being ignorant about it myself, the Pope now accuses the victims of wrongdoing. Yeah, way to go ! Put down those who think that refusing to be sullied and debased is to be opposed - that is how it is done now. The way of the devil for sure is how things work now. Step on the victims, step on those who refuse to join the debasement of our values. Soon those who refuse to join this debasement of our values will all be put in concentration camps, or something similar. At least, that is where things gradually are taking us.

 

[Curious George]

Going by the thread title, do you mean in a societal context? As in which of my beliefs should I desire that society enshrines into law?

Hmmm, more so on what grounds are beliefs justified to be enshrined as law. But more specifically laws that will be imposed on you. We all have beliefs on how people ought to be.
But how do we think people ought to judge how people ought to be?
It is a very abstract question and I do not know if a coherent answer exists. I assume one does.

...In this sense we all believe we have the right to impose certain closely held beliefs on others.

Yes. It is somewhat silly to deny this simple truth. I am looking for the rules behind this. Whereupon do draw the distinction between the, as you put it earlier, "collectivist and the individual."

 

[BSM1]

I did not ask which ones am I imposing, I am asking which ones ought I impose.

An example of a closely held belief of mine which I do not impose upon you is that I am a capable person.

The two extremes here are all and none. These extremes are easy to address. "All" allows for mutually exclusive beliefs, and "none" contradicts itself.

The answer is then somewhere in between. I am looking for the line. Where do you believe that line is?

I think you've accidentally stated the problem: most, if not all, personal beliefs are highly subjective. What is "capable" in your mind? Why should others accept your definition? You should certainly hold to your convictions but maybe you should hold them very close; at least that's my personal belief.

 

[Curious George]

Some things cannot be resolved, nor agreed upon.

And what is the proper course when something cannot be resolved or agreed?

 

[Brickjectivity]

"[W]hich of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?"

and why?

Suppose you are my parent or guardian? Then you have to impose something on me, but you probably as a parent are interested in my well being. Suppose you are not my parent. Then we have to agree or disagree.

 

[Curious George]

I think you've accidentally stated the problem: most, if not all, personal beliefs are highly subjective. What is "capable" in your mind? Why should others accept your definition? You should certainly hold to your convictions but maybe you should hold them very close; at least that's my personal belief.

Yes but this example is a closely held belief that I do not impose upon others nor believe should be imposed upon others.

I have other beliefs that I do believe should be imposed upon others. We all do. Killing without the right to do so, for instance, should not be allowed. I believe this should be imposed upon others. Most people agree. So I am asking when others should be able to impose their beliefs on us?