A question regarding law and society?

[Curious George]

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.

Is the last line here supposed to read "agree to disagree." If so, that resolution doesn't work in many situations. If it is "agree or disagree" that doesn't resolve any conflict.

 

[BSM1]

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?

Well, again, you have stated the problem in your example; what is killing without the right to do so in your opinion? This is why as a society we need and have well defined laws to govern us, not beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"[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.

To give context to my quote:

In this particular discussion, it seemed like the person I was talking to was demanding that everyone follow his personal code, even when it goes against their own conscience.

I was trying to point out that if other people weren’t hassling him over his beliefs, it wasn’t necessarily because they thought it was because they considered his beliefs fine. I’m sure a lot of people would have found his beliefs horrible, but they didn’t interfere because of a “live and let live” attitude toward others. This was the same approach I thought he was saying he should be able to violate, so I was trying to get him to consider what would happen to him if everyone behaved the way he was suggesting.

 

[Curious George]

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

If only it were that easy. People cannot even agree to what these terms are. Certainly there are areas where virtually everyone agrees, but then there are grey areas. Obviously most would not be okay with the imposition of a black and white view when their views were gray.

For instance would you be okay if someone said that all killing was murder?

 

[Grandliseur]

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

We have disagreements where people agree to disagree and that is that. We have disagreements where things are solved legally, but not in any other way at all. Some of these lead to murder, others to war, again others lead simply to frustration, others lead to excessive fines for refusing to bake a cake and ruining people's lives because of this excessive unreasonable demonic judgments.

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.

 

[Curious George]

Well, again, you have stated the problem in your example; what is killing without the right to do so in your opinion? This is why as a society we need and have well defined laws to govern us, not beliefs.

Laws are simply beliefs that we have implicitly agreed. Some are quite arbitrary others have sound reasoning. Of the ones with sound reasoning there are often conflicting beliefs with equally sound reasoning.

Are you essentially saying that you are okay for beliefs to be imposed upon you as long as they were codified and ratified?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 be, and shall not be accepted.

So that’s your position. The question is how other people should be able to impose their beliefs on you.

Say some other religion considers your religion’s marriages invalid; should they be able to nullify your marriage and the marriages of your co-religionists?

I mean, I’m sure I could find plenty of people who believe that marriage as a whole violates the will of God, or that all of your religion’s sacraments are invalid. Why shouldn’t someone of some other religion be allowed to treat you the way you want to treat gay people?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Is this suggesting that all beliefs are arbitrary?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"[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.

You could impose your closely held belief of your generosity on me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is the last line here supposed to read "agree to disagree." If so, that resolution doesn't work in many situations. If it is "agree or disagree" that doesn't resolve any conflict.

The question is which closely held beliefs I am free to impose? It is asking for a list of situations where I can interact with people without any negotiation. There are some situations like that but most interaction is an imperfect situation. Sometimes we have to impose or be imprinted upon, either/or. Think about table manners. If I go to a home with European style table manners then I have to make a choice. Everyone else knows their manners and is eating in a certain style. Either I can learn how to properly eat (I do not know European table manners) or I can eat freestyle, as I like, fork in either hand, one fork for all courses. Beliefs are being imposed upon me about how I should eat. If I eat freestyle, I am imposing that upon the other people at the table. Its going to get their attention, maybe even annoy them. Its not that I want to impose but that we're social. We have to agree or disagree. My refusal to use table manners is disagreement and signals hostility whether I like it or not.

 

[BSM1]

Laws are simply beliefs that we have implicitly agreed. Some are quite arbitrary others have sound reasoning. Of the ones with sound reasoning there are often conflicting beliefs with equally sound reasoning.

Are you essentially saying that you are okay for beliefs to be imposed upon you as long as they were codified and ratified?

It happens every minute of every day. All laws are just codified beliefs. There was no universal law against murder; we had to define our belief of what murder entails as opposed to, say, self-defense killing.

 

[Curious George]

The question is which closely held beliefs I am free to impose? It is asking for a list of situations where I can interact with people without any negotiation. There are some situations like that but most interaction is an imperfect situation. Sometimes we have to impose or be imprinted upon, either/or. Think about table manners. If I go to a home with European style table manners then I have to make a choice. Everyone else knows their manners and is eating in a certain style. Either I can learn how to properly eat (I do not know European table manners) or I can eat freestyle, as I like, fork in either hand, one fork for all courses. Beliefs are being imposed upon me about how I should eat. If I eat freestyle, I am imposing that upon the other people at the table. Its going to get their attention, maybe even annoy them. Its not that I want to impose but that we're social. We have to agree or disagree. My refusal to use table manners is disagreement and signals hostility whether I like it or not.

The mistake is in the question. It is not "which closely held beliefs I am free to impose?" Rather it is Which of their closely held beliefs should (not are) they be free to impose upon you?

Let us go with table manners. Should others be able to impose their table manners upon us? I think most would agree that the answer is that "it depends." It depends on the place we areand the manners that are and the level of imposition proposed. I think that most any concrete example will have the "it depends" factor. I am asking for a coherent system for deciding the it depends factor.

 

[Curious George]

It happens every minute of every day. All laws are just codified beliefs. There was no universal law against murder; we had to define our belief of what murder entails as opposed to, say, self-defense killing.

But are their not beliefs that even if they were codified and ratified that you would still believe should not be imposed?

 

[BSM1]

But are their not beliefs that even if they were codified and ratified that you would still believe should not be imposed?

But by their very nature laws are no longer beliefs. If you are not happy with a law you can try to have it changed. There's not much you can do about someone's beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But by their very nature laws are no longer beliefs. If you are not happy with a law you can try to have it changed. There's not much you can do about someone's beliefs.

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.

 

[Curious George]

But by their very nature laws are no longer beliefs. If you are not happy with a law you can try to have it changed. There's not much you can do about someone's beliefs.

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.

 

[Augustus]

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."

I don't think I have a better answer than subjective preference. Seems to relate to the type of belief that I believe is fundamental to the nature of the society I want to live in.

When it is possible for you to hold your belief and me to hold mine then I have no need to negate your right to yours. But when it is one or the other, I'm going to champion my own values over other people's.

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.

So in this case there is a fundamental conflict between the 2 perspectives. If I saw abortion as murder I would wish it banned for everyone (not that I do hold this belief though).

 

[Curious George]

I don't think I have a better answer than subjective preference. Seems to relate to the type of belief that I believe is fundamental to the nature of the society I want to live in.

When it is possible for you to hold your belief and me to hold mine then I have no need to negate your right to yours. But when it is one or the other, I'm going to champion my own values over other people's.

But is there a mechanic by which we can judge belief?

For instance, there is an idea about fairness. I am not sure who proposed the idea but if we were to assign rights blindly to a system and then have to take part in that system we would be more likely to give a "fair" distribution. This is in essence the one cuts one chooses method of cookie sharing. If you do not know which bit of the cookie you will receive then you are more likely to divide the cookie evenly.

Can such a framework be developed for the imposition of beliefs?

 

[Grandliseur]

Say some other religion considers your religion’s marriages invalid; should they be able to nullify your marriage and the marriages of your co-religionists?

The point I made clearly made mention that this was without considering religious issues. In all of the whole world, in all nations, from ancient times to now, marriage has been accepted whether one had one wife or more than one, as being a question of male & female for the sake of having a family with children.

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. This is a violation of ancient usage of language, an abomination that is forced upon others to justify themselves by force to society. 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.

It is outside what anyone considers. It is standard old English, and leave my English alone. Let me be gay if I bloody want to without having to be thought a homosexual, let me be married without having to explain that I am not lesbian or whatever you like to call such.

You can go have sex with a car for all I care, just leave my English alone.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The mistake is in the question. It is not "which closely held beliefs I am free to impose?" Rather it is Which of their closely held beliefs should (not are) they be free to impose upon you?

Let us go with table manners. Should others be able to impose their table manners upon us? I think most would agree that the answer is that "it depends." It depends on the place we areand the manners that are and the level of imposition proposed. I think that most any concrete example will have the "it depends" factor. I am asking for a coherent system for deciding the it depends factor.

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.