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

[Sunstone]

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?

 

[SalixIncendium]

During my first tenure with vegetarianism, I refrained from eating meat due to inhumane raising and slaughter of commercially raised livestock. While I believed that eating meat and supporting the industry was wrong, I never suggested that anyone else refrain from buying and consuming meat. While I shared with others the reason for my vegetarianism in hopes of promoting awareness, my beliefs were my own and I didn't feel it was morally acceptable to impose my beliefs on others.

Clearly, not everyone shares my opinion on this or we wouldn't have holy wars.

In response to the bonus question, I think such a society can be fair if there is a consensus within a society on morals, views, and opinions. Sure, in a diverse society a few will feel slighted, but think chaos would ensue without laws based on consensus.


Disclaimer: My beliefs regarding the OP stated above are my own and not intended to impose on the beliefs of any RF members.

 

[Sunstone]

In response to the bonus question, I think such a society can be fair if there is a consensus within a society on morals, views, and opinions. Sure, in a diverse society a few will feel slighted, but think chaos would ensue without laws based on consensus.

Just to clarify, so you would disagree with a religious or ideological group imposing its unique moral values on the rest of society?

Disclaimer: My beliefs regarding the OP stated above are my own and not intended to impose on the beliefs of any RF members.

Damn! Can't count on you for anything! Well, I guess I'm just going to have to implement my plans for tyranny without you. Party pooper!

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

First, stir fried locust cryscilists taste pretty good, nice and crunchy. I would not want them banned.

The key to the whole post is in bold. Pretty much all legal systems of the world are intimately linked to morality, but of course some morals that are unique to one religion and culture should not be standard for the secular law.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just to clarify, so you would disagree with a religious or ideological group imposing its unique moral values on the rest of society?

Correct.

Damn! Can't count on you for anything! Well, I guess I'm just going to have to implement my plans for tyranny without you. Party pooper!

I never said anything about ceasing or desisting any tyrannical acts. I can continue with plans for tyranny, chaos, and general discord without imposing my beliefs on RF members.

 

[bobhikes]

All moral values are unique to us and we use consensus to impose them on others. Inclusive consensus would be the best answer. If you are excluding others then your moral values would be questioned. If you are including all then the moral values would be valid.

Killing a Human is wrong is a consensus moral value, as seen by all our justifications Death Penalty, euthanasia, self defense, war, protection of (self, property or others), genocide, abortion...etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

When it comes to people being victimized we should intervene. Ethics should supersede cultural norms. So we should "impose our morals" when it comes to slavery, torture, bigotry, misogyny, genital mutilation, child marriage, disproportionate punishments for minor or arbitrary crimes, oppression, etc.
Not all moral/cultural beliefs are equal.

 

[joe1776]

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 think we humans are born with a universal moral guidance system (conscience) and all products of our reasoning minds, laws, scripture, and so on, are potential biases that can throw moral judgments off course.

If we could find an unbiased jury in every human culture, and give them the same facts in a specific case, they would make the same moral judgment. The difficulty in proving this is that, in so many cases, and in so many places, because of traditional biases, like the bias that women are inferior to men, an unbiased jury would be hard to find. A woman who kills her husband in self-defense would not get a fair trial in many cultures.

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?

All laws are to some extent based on morals or morays.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

I can't see a time when I would ever want to eat locusts, but I don't think it should be banned for others who happen to have a hankering for a bowl of locust soup.

But there are some states which ban horse meat, and there are those who consider eating dogs or cats to be morally repugnant. These might be cultural mores than anything else.

 

[Woberts]

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to implement my plans for tyranny without you. Party pooper!

Don't worry @Sunstone, I'll support you. I'll use my devilish wiles to install you as Supreme Ruler of Religious Fora.(Why do people say "forums"? The proper plural of "forum" is "fora".)

 

[joe1776]

...(Why do people say "forums"? The proper plural of "forum" is "fora".)

We're speaking English not Latin. And I think the Latin plural is spelled forae, pronounced for-eye if memory serves.

Oops! I'm wrong. I see a dictionary allows both fora and forae as spellings.

 

[Woberts]

We're speaking English not Latin. And I think the Latin plural is spelled forae

It's not Latin, nor is it meant to be a derivative of Latin.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sometimes, pushing an ethnocentric view on someone else? Not good, but I believe there are points where a conflict of opinion should be heard. Americans on average need to forge better relationships with their parents and elders, namely white Americans. Families tend to stick too closely together especially in Asia, like you marry a girl, her family's welfare becomes your responsibility. I mean taking on an addition whole human being into the budget is huge, but a whole family? That's overboard.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?

Liberals try and impose their moral values on others all the time, usually putting their personal beliefs above eligous liberty and conscience. In fact a spokesperson for the Obama admin said she 'could not even imagine' a case where if sexual rights and religious rights were in conflict where religious rights would prevail.

 

[Cacotopia]

Liberals try and impose their moral values on others all the time, usually putting their personal beliefs above eligous liberty and conscience. In fact a spokesperson for the Obama admin said she 'could not even imagine' a case where if sexual rights and religious rights were in conflict where religious rights would prevail.

care t put that quote into context would like to know what she was referring to.

If it were in reference to say abortion or same sex marriage I would agree with her.

 

[Cacotopia]

I personally think libs, dems and reps all spout the same excrement just with a different flavor of sauce.

 

[Woberts]

Oops! I'm wrong. I see a dictionary allows both fora and forae as spellings.

You're alright. It's just that all the other fora I'm on refer to forums as fora. It's kind of stuck.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

When there was no choice (meaning, when I sincerely believe that it is a matter of grave danger), and even then with the understanding that my opponents would be automatically entitled to forcefully reject my imposition. Odds are that they indeed will.

Of course, that is a good reason to try and present my case and attempt to convince them before imposing anything.

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?

No. I would feel a fool for even considering that.

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. Not a chance.

Unless the laws are not taken seriously, of course.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Don't worry @Sunstone, I'll support you. I'll use my devilish wiles to install you as Supreme Ruler of Religious Fora.(Why do people say "forums"? The proper plural of "forum" is "fora".)

Both are considered proper, actually.

Definition of FORUM