When, If Ever, Are We Justified in Imposing Moral Values Unique to Us on Others?

[james blunt]

When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

It is not correct to impose any belief on anybody but it is correct to impose the truth on people as to false belief.

Me - ''That wound there squirting out blood needs stitching up''

fool - ''No I am ok God will save me''

Me- ''Then today I am your God , shut up and grip your teethe''

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is not correct to impose any belief on anybody but it is correct to impose the truth on people as to false belief.

Me - ''That wound there squirting out blood needs stitching up''

fool - ''No I am ok God will save me''

Me- ''Then today I am your God , shut up and grip your teethe''

How do you feel about DNR orders?

 

[Nakosis]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology. When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

For instance: Suppose your religion or ideology prohibited the eating of locusts. Would there by any principle under which you would feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts for everyone? Would you feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts if your only justification for doing so were the tenets of your religion or ideology?


BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

Depends on the moral being supported, like no human sacrifice I'd be likely to impose on others. No cannibalism is another. No defecating except in approve receptacles on my property. I understand that I'm probably not alone in some of this, but hypothetically if I were. I suspect there to be a few things I'd likely be imposing on others regardless of whether they were accepted by anyone else.

 

[james blunt]

How do you feel about DNR orders?

Well, sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind but in the right measure.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

It doesn't matter if a society is 2 people or 2 billion, the only thing that should be legislated is morality. But...no religion I know of sticks to an actual, universally applicable moral code. Instead, they pile all kinds of "moral" precepts like no gathering sticks on Sunday, no sex outside of marriage or honor killings, onto their tenets of morality.

Using those examples, liberals and conservatives alike want their moral code to be the law of the universe. But there is near universal (98%+) desire a goal for good order, which only excludes tyrants and anarchists. From that, we can deduce a moral code which can be applied to us all, while declaring the right to be a tyrant or an anarchist simply doesn't exist because their goal is the violation of any of the rights of the rest of us.

So what is such a moral code? Simple, turns out to be a refined version of the Golden Rule, which is buried deep within almost every religion on Earth. To wit:

Morality is honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL people to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. And of course these rights apply even to tyrants, anarchists and other criminals who haven't yet violated or threatened to violate said code.

All else is individually determined virtue, which should not be legislated, though it is subject to public, non-violent pressure.

 

[Fool]

BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

no, because you're showing bias to a group in relation to other groups. what is fair is fair for all in action. the right to choose for self does not overrule the right to choose for other self.

 

[Vee]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology. When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

Sharing my beliefs, sure, but imposing implies forcing them on others and there's no value in doing that. People need to make their own choices.

 

[Nakosis]

no, because you're showing bias to a group in relation to other groups. what is fair is fair for all in action. the right to choose for self does not overrule the right to choose for other self.

That's a good point.

So you create a set of protections for all minority groups that you impose on the majority so you limit the power of the majority to impose on the minority. The minority groups will never be equal, just protected to whatever level agreed to by the majority.

I don't think you could ever really get to a "fair for all" system.

 

[Nakosis]

BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

I don't know what your understanding of fair and just are. If you mean equality(everyone having equal power) than no. Equality is impossible IMO. Fair and just? That's more a matter of opinion. What you see as fair and just may seem neither to me.

 

[Cary Cook]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology. When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

For instance: Suppose your religion or ideology prohibited the eating of locusts. Would there by any principle under which you would feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts for everyone? Would you feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts if your only justification for doing so were the tenets of your religion or ideology?


BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

Easy answer - never.

But few if any religionists assert values "unique to us". Nearly all religions have values shared by competing religionists, and some values shared by some non-religionists, e.g anti-abortion. And some of those values are unjust.

BONUS QUESTION: Easy no.

 

[Milton Platt]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology. When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

For instance: Suppose your religion or ideology prohibited the eating of locusts. Would there by any principle under which you would feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts for everyone? Would you feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts if your only justification for doing so were the tenets of your religion or ideology?


BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

Now that is an interesting question, Sunstone.......

Societies agree upon and impose values that are generally agreed to be to the benefit of the society as a whole, I would guess. That is why moral values are subjective and vary around he world between individual societies.

 

[Fool]

That's a good point.

So you create a set of protections for all minority groups that you impose on the majority so you limit the power of the majority to impose on the minority. The minority groups will never be equal, just protected to whatever level agreed to by the majority.

I don't think you could ever really get to a "fair for all" system.

i didn't use majority or minority attributes. i stated no matter where you fall within a majority/minority the other doesn't get the right to dictate choices for others. its like a buffet table. you get to choose what you want from the myriad number of offers but you don't get to force others to choose the same.

a fair for all is in the middle, neither to the left, nor the right but split right down the middle. there are only two polarities, hedonism and ascetism. like the oracle at delphi said, nothing to excess.

 

[Kapalika]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology.

Yep.

When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

Depends. I don't generally feel much about what others do except where it concerns their responsibilities to family and society in accordance with my beliefs. So perhaps only in that instance.

For instance: Suppose your religion or ideology prohibited the eating of locusts. Would there by any principle under which you would feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts for everyone? Would you feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts if your only justification for doing so were the tenets of your religion or ideology?

As a Hindu, I find such a thing reconcilable with my religion although I know there has been tension over eating Beef for many, so for others they can reconcile it. But I can't. Eat people for all I care. The only thing that might make me think twice is people eating cats.

BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

No? Is this a trick question?

 

[crossfire]

Suppose you had a religious or ideological moral belief that by and large was shared by no one outside your religion or ideology. When, if ever, would it be fair, just, or appropriate to impose your moral belief on others?

For instance: Suppose your religion or ideology prohibited the eating of locusts. Would there by any principle under which you would feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts for everyone? Would you feel it fair, just, or appropriate to prohibit the eating of locusts if your only justification for doing so were the tenets of your religion or ideology?


BONUS QUESTION: Can a religiously and ideologically diverse society be a fair or just society if its laws are based on morals, views, and opinions unique to just one group within that society?

There are religions whose practice consists of misrepresentation, slander, and propaganda in order to disrupt and corrupt nomos. (Buddha had this happen to him during his lifetime by the Vulture-Killers cult, recorded in the Water-Snake Simile. You can see this even now with all of the "Fake Buddha Quotes" going around the internet.)

When the propaganda has spread far enough, they will then claim legitimacy for the propaganda due to the spread of the propaganda, and will claim discrimination and repression when their propaganda is challenged. Buddhism is not the only religion targeted by this--many religions have been and are targeted by this. Buddhism has the Four Dharma Seals by which you can tell Buddha's teachings from the propaganda.

One could make the argument that the Vulture Killers/propaganda spreaders are the ones doing the imposing in this case, and I think it is quite reasonable for Buddhists to have the Four Dharma Seals as a requirement to be recognized as Buddhism. However, this would only apply to those identifying as Buddhists--it wouldn't apply to non-Buddhists or society in general.

Bonus Question: I agree with religious diversity. However, I also believe that gatherings/congregations also have the right to set their own standards within their congregations. (For instance, it's not kewl for propaganda spreaders to demand to be able to spread their propaganda within their target's congregation.)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like imposing one's religious beliefs on a child - of one's own or others?