A question regarding law and society?

[Curious George]

I have an idea. Lets make a spreadsheet that predicts the effects of different impositions. We'll make a database and study the dynamics of imposed beliefs to uncover the hidden variables which maximize various outcomes. For example what choices maximize peace, or unity, or intelligence, or number of children, or lifespan, converts, or number of books read and competence. From this let us develop a consistent formula that predicts what beliefs should be imposed and by whom to obtain a specific goal. We can call it either a religion or a political system or combo-pack. If this sounds unusual or silly or like a derail, just remember there are indeed religions where absolutely every minute of your day is defined, and there are very popular religions which define table manners, too. Some of these have a deep philosophical basis aiming to answer just the sort of question asked in the OP.

I do not think such an idea would is silly. However, how do we decide which outcomes we want our society to reflect?

 

[BSM1]

If it helps, the context of the original quote was a debate (argument?) about whether the deeply held beliefs about abortion in the anti-choice movement should justify banning abortion for everyone.

Exactly. That is why abortion choice has been determined legal no matter whose sensibilities are offended.

Well that is simply not true. Beliefs can and do change. A person can certainly help facilitate such a change.

My point is that you seemed to have drawn the line at whatever the law says. This is a very arbitrary line for a should question. Remember the line is which of my beliefs SHOULD I be free to impose on you.

Saying the law, is akin to saying whatever is should be. The statement lacks content.

Okay. Simple answer. None of your personal beliefs should be imposed on me.

 

[Curious George]

Okay. Simple answer. None of your personal beliefs should be imposed on me.

That is contradictory. We cannot arrange a system with more than one person where in which system, not one belief is imposed on another.

 

[BSM1]

That is contradictory. We cannot arrange a system with more than one person where in which system, not one belief is imposed on another.

We most certainly can! Unless your belief is made into a law that is enforced by people who are armed and can restrict your freedom, then your beliefs can go pound sand as far as I am concerned.

 

[Curious George]

We most certainly can! Unless your belief is made into a law that is enforced by people who are armed and can restrict your freedom, then your beliefs can go pound sand as far as I am concerned.

And if they are made into law and enforced by...then they are right?

You can't possibly believe that this is the distinction

 

[David T]

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.

Ha lying isn't reality you insist on reality. So you are not imposing a belief which has zero to do with reality, you are demanding that their lying is fantasy fiction bs and its nonsense!!! The worst lying are people who dont realize they are lying. That's called clueless because they are lying to themselves first and want to pass that on to you. I treat that as a communicable disease. So you aren't imposing a belief, you are beating belief with a baseball bat like it's the plague!!! Amen. Hell as a manager I have had to deal with it constantly in construction management. So you are just practicing good healthy interpersonal management skills.

 

[David T]

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?

Well beliefs are a dysfunctional by product of a particularly dysfunctionally self labeled region of the brain named "higher functioning". I see no evidence of literally being true.

So you are asking me which dysfunctionalism you can impose upon me. I might say none!!! But since dysfunctionalism is "NORMAL" your literal capability is literally separate from the actuality if you are capable. No belief no matter how strongly held makes you capable. The inverse would be you believe you are not capable and in reality you are very capable. I see those those people like gems, and I automatically encourage them. We can watch it emperically on those talent shows unfold.

What is normal? Normal is to ask that question that's very normal. I am left handed.

 

[BSM1]

And if they are made into law and enforced by...then they are right?

You can't possibly believe that this is the distinction

Nobody said anything about being right (or wrong). We're talking about the differences between beliefs which are subjective as compared to laws which are more objective. The state has the power to enforce a law but it should never have the power to enforce a belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

None. The community as a collective determines that through its laws.

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.

Same sex couples being legally married imposes no more on you that them having a sexual relationship. It's interesting that it is the sex you have a laissez-faire attitude toward, but marriage offends you.

It's also odd that you feel imposed upon by these marriages.

How about if they legalized same sex marriage in Armenia? Would that be another imposition on you.

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?

Easy. Give same sex and opposite sex couples the same rights and let each choose what's best for himself. If that creates tension with either group, as long as everybody behaves lawfully, that's acceptable. One is free to choose tolerance or tension.

That we ought not impose beliefs is itself a belief that we are then suggesting we impose.

Maybe we should visit what we mean by imposition or imposing. To me, imposing is forbidding or demanding behavior using the threat of punishment for noncompliance. Taking a position that the law should protect the rights of all to live within that law doesn't rise to my definition of imposition.

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.

So you see yourself as a victim because society is becoming more just and tolerant in a way that contradicts your religious beliefs? If you are a victim, it is of a belief system that has caused you to take such an irrational, unloving, and destructive view while living in a free society that increasingly disapproves of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Some people applauded the $130,000 (was it) fine for refusing to bake a cake. I think $1 fine would have made the point plus a warning. Instead, a totally insane, yes, insane, amount was levied for refusing to bake a cake. This is enough to get people not peaceful at heart to go buy guns and put them to good use.

A one dollar fine and a warning make a different point than a $130,000 fine. It says feel free to discriminate unless you mind paying a dollar and getting a warning that you may be fined yet another dollar.

It's interesting that you have agreed with the idea that such behavior should be illegal and punished, but just not enough to dissuade the behavior. In your position, I would have said that there should be no such law, no fine at all, and nothing to be warned about.

It's also interesting that you described a violent reaction to such fines as a good use for guns. That's pretty close to an endorsement of terrorism, isn't it, which is an unlawful way of imposing your beliefs on others?

The bottom line here is that we have a social contract that imposes a set of core beliefs on all who choose to participate in that society. If you can't find a society that reflects your preferences, then you'll have to learn to compromise with others - a concept known as tolerance, where tolerance does not necessitate approval, just a willingness to not oppress others with different beliefs and customs living within the law.

You are in this claim making the de facto claim that homosexuals are married. That is not true. They may have sex, but it is not marriage now, in the past, or in the future.

But that's not your call. Once again, those decisions are made collectively. Same sex couples can now be married, and it is the same relationship in the eyes of the law as an opposite sex marriage. Your permission is not required.

I don't care what kind of sex you or others have, but don't go about abusing my language, gay is being joyous, not homosexual, a married person has either a wife or a husband. It is outside religious issues.

Once again, not your call. We are all free to use language as we see fit short of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Feel free to use the word gay however you like. Are you joyous? Feel free to call that being gay. I predict that you'll be misunderstood, and I would suggest that that reaction would indicate that the language is not yours, just one you use.

I do, however, think that you have found common ground with same sex married couples. I suspect that most agree with you that they have a husband or wife.

 

[Curious George]

Well beliefs are a dysfunctional by product of a particularly dysfunctionally self labeled region of the brain named "higher functioning". I see no evidence of literally being true.

So you are asking me which dysfunctionalism you can impose upon me. I might say none!!! But since dysfunctionalism is "NORMAL" your literal capability is literally separate from the actuality if you are capable. No belief no matter how strongly held makes you capable. The inverse would be you believe you are not capable and in reality you are very capable. I see those those people like gems, and I automatically encourage them. We can watch it emperically on those talent shows unfold.

What is normal? Normal is to ask that question that's very normal. I am left handed.

I try not to watch to many talent shows.

Are you sure you understand the question? I am not asking which beliefs I am capable of imposing on you. I am asking which, from your perspective, I ought to impose on you.

 

[Curious George]

Nobody said anything about being right (or wrong). We're talking about the differences between beliefs which are subjective as compared to laws which are more objective. The state has the power to enforce a law but it should never have the power to enforce a belief.

Yet as noted earlier, laws are beliefs.

 

[Curious George]

None. The community as a collective determines that through its laws.

This does not really answer or materially differ for the purpose of this discussion.
But are you also trying to suggest that the line for what should be done is distinguished by what is legally acceptable? Or what the majority believes?

Easy. Give same sex and opposite sex couples the same rights and let each choose what's best for himself. If that creates tension with either group, as long as everybody behaves lawfully, that's acceptable. One is free to choose tolerance or tension.

This track poses a duty for some, at least, to recognize any legal marriage as a marriage.

Maybe we should visit what we mean by imposition or imposing. To me, imposing is forbidding or demanding behavior using the threat of punishment for noncompliance. Taking a position that the law should protect the rights of all to live within that law doesn't rise to my definition of imposition.

And a law forbidding or demanding behavior to protect the rights of all rooms live within the law does not rise to an imposition?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

I don't see marriage as exclusively an institution to create and raise children. Otherwise, the marriage between a man and a woman who never intend to have children is an abomination.

No, marriage also is valid as a way of cementing bonds between people and *that* is true whether or not the people involved are the same gender. That family bond is the core of our society. To exclude those with same-sex partners is the abomination in my mind.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Usually, a vote.

 

[David T]

I try not to watch to many talent shows.

Are you sure you understand the question? I am not asking which beliefs I am capable of imposing on you. I am asking which, from your perspective, I ought to impose on you.

And you are imposing a belief you understand the question and I don't? . Is it possible for someone to believe they understand and they don't, simply out of the belief that because they asked the question they therefore understand the topic? Yes, I just point to atheism, and church both as proof. . But then the question becomes how to point out the issue. That's not easy.

As I have already said belief is a dysfunction of a particular region of the brain, I said as much and so you want to impose a dysfunction on Me? I see no reason at all for any need of any dysfunction being imposed upon me but none the less I have them imposed upon me regardless. That's our cultural reality. I just call that normal and laugh and deal with it in healthy ways. I am left handed.

 

[Curious George]

Usually, a vote.

So majority rules?

 

[Curious George]

And you are imposing a belief you understand the question and I don't? . Is it possible for someone to believe they understand and they don't, simply out of the belief that because they asked the question they therefore understand the topic? Yes, I just point to atheism, and church both as proof. . But then the question becomes how to point out the issue. That's not easy.

As I have already said belief is a dysfunction of a particular region of the brain, I said as much and so you want to impose a dysfunction on Me? I see no reason at all for any need of any dysfunction being imposed upon me but none the less I have them imposed upon me regardless. That's our cultural reality. I just call that normal and laugh and deal with it in healthy ways. I am left handed.

So the idea that we should impose upon you a duty to refrain from unnecessary killing is equally as "dysfunctional" as an imposition for you to engage in unnecessary killing?

You can roll around and rub your belly with your left hand all you like, but it will not answer the question. Is that because you do not understand the question? No, I think that you understand the question fine. I would hazard a guess that because reality does not line up with your beliefs of simplicity that you choose to engage the question in an manner that is not meaningful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This does not really answer or materially differ for the purpose of this discussion.
But are you also trying to suggest that the line for what should be done is distinguished by what is legally acceptable? Or what the majority believes?

I am defining who I believe has the right to impose beliefs on others. It's government with the consent of the governed.

This track poses a duty for some, at least, to recognize any legal marriage as a marriage.

Once again, imposed duty is defined by the law, which addresses acceptable behavior, not beliefs, desires or feelings. One doesn't have to like it. You don't have to approve. But you do have to comply with the law or face the consequences. That is proper in my estimation.

And a law forbidding or demanding behavior to protect the rights of all rooms live within the law does not rise to an imposition?

Is it an imposition to be forbidden to oppress a law abiding neighbor? Is it an imposition to be forbidden to trample on the rights of others? It's certainly an act of imposing, and therefore, an imposition in that sense.

But it's not an imposition in the sense of being an unfair requirement or request.

The kind of imposition I object to is a religious group using the government to forbid certain behaviors in others because it offends their religious sensibilities. That is not legitimate to me, and should be prevented were possible and opposed where it occurs.

Society has a legitimate interest in imposing its dominant values on its members. The church may desire the right to not suffer witches. It might choose to impose its beliefs on those it calls witches given the chance.

The majority might choose to impose its values on the church, including the one that says that hanging and burning people as witches should be illegal.

That's appropriate, whereas the church doing the same thing is not.

 

[David T]

So the idea that we should impose upon you a duty to refrain from unnecessary killing is equally as "dysfunctional" as an imposition for you to engage in unnecessary killing?

You can roll around and rub your belly with your left hand all you like, but it will not answer the question. Is that because you do not understand the question? No, I think that you understand the question fine. I would hazard a guess that because reality does not line up with your beliefs of simplicity that you choose to engage the question in an manner that is not meaningful.

Is killing as you expressed it functional? Since how you expressed it is dysfunctional itself I would say you are already imposing your dysfunction into the narrative itself and asking if it's OK to do that! I say no but you ignore it repeatedly. So by default you are constantly asking is that OK and disregarding no at the same time. This is like someone asking daily can I do that I say no and they do it anyway. Please post modern philosophy is stupid right there. It also points to the irony of both the unconscious as it is and the complete disconnect at the "higher functioning" region of the brain from that at two words "I believe" or "I do not believe" , or" I am agnostic. " all normal all dysfunctional. That's normal.