13
   

Under what conditions is it morally acceptable to impose our beliefs on others, if they don’t ask?

Forums: Moral Imposition, General, Philosophy, Morality, Virtue Ethics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:59 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Someone has tagged this thread "virtue ethics." That is a much better description. Morality does not exist as advertised. It's a waste of discussion to behave as though it does, the more so as you continue to inferentially recognize that as fact.

I tagged it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:07 am
Then why the hell do have "morality" as a component of the discussion? Foolish thread . . .
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:10 am
@igm,
Krumple wrote:

Now if you are imposing a belief on someone without any basis for the belief then it is immoral to do it. Because something that is baseless is no different than if you just made it up on the spot. It has to have something to back it with.


igm wrote:

If one has a basis are there times when one could attempt to impose one's belief on someone and it wouldn't be immoral to do it?


I would say yes, it is immoral to impose a belief even if you have a sound argument. My reasoning is if the basis is sound then you wouldn't have to impose the belief in the first place. In other words I would be suspect of the basis of the belief that it be required to impose it.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:33 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Then why the hell do have "morality" as a component of the discussion? Foolish thread . . .

Just because you say something is foolish does not make it foolish. The question is a moral one and Virtue Ethics is about morality. To say it is not would be to say something which sounds foolish.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:48 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Now if you are imposing a belief on someone without any basis for the belief then it is immoral to do it. Because something that is baseless is no different than if you just made it up on the spot. It has to have something to back it with.


igm wrote:

If one has a basis are there times when one could attempt to impose one's belief on someone and it wouldn't be immoral to do it?


I would say yes, it is immoral to impose a belief even if you have a sound argument. My reasoning is if the basis is sound then you wouldn't have to impose the belief in the first place. In other words I would be suspect of the basis of the belief that it be required to impose it.

There is an alternative but it is academic. If the recipient of your attempt to impose your belief (which has a sound basis) is unable or unwilling to see the sound basis then your basis would not be suspect. Of course as you have stated even in this case you would not attempt to impose it because it is immoral.

So would you conclude that any attempt at imposition is immoral and the alternative is reasoned argument in all cases where reasoned argument is possible and if not then wait for the law to be broken if that person’s action lead to breaking the law?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 11:31 am
@igm,
This is a specious statement. Ethics discusses morality, but does not posit it. Morality posits absolutes of good and bad, right and wrong. Ethics is subject to debate. Morality (if it actualy existed) would not be subject to debate. Which is why i find questions of morality distasteful, and any statement or implication that morality actually exists to be foolish.
igm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 11:35 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

This is a specious statement. Ethics discusses morality, but does not posit it. Morality posits absolutes of good and bad, right and wrong. Ethics is subject to debate. Morality (if it actualy existed) would not be subject to debate. Which is why i find questions of morality distasteful, and any statement or implication that morality actually exists to be foolish.

You are entitled to your opinion. PLEASE don’t reply.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 11:53 am
@igm,
I'll reply when i goddamned well want to. Look up ethos--it's relative to a culture or a community. It not only does not purport to be universal, it in fact is specific to said community or culture. Morality purports to be universal. Those are matters of definition, not opinion.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 11:56 am
Is it morally acceptable to attack others (an individual or a group) in their absence about their beliefs when they are unable to defend themselves due to their absence? Or is it a rhetorical right that society accepts and can never be immoral?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:04 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to attack others (an individual or a group) in their absence about their beliefs when they are unable to defend themselves due to their absence?


yes, i assume that there are folks i know or have known who disparage me and my ideas behind my back, who gives a ****
igm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:05 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I'll reply when i goddamned well want to. Look up ethos--it's relative to a culture or a community. It not only does not purport to be universal, it in fact is specific to said community or culture. Morality purports to be universal. Those are matters of definition, not opinion.

Are you trying to impose your beliefs on me even though I haven't asked?

I rather you didn't reply I have a problem perceiving you posts (not just here) as destructive in nature when aimed at me, so I'd rather discuss the subject with someone else. It must be a misperception on my part. Try not to reply.
djjd62
 
  4  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:07 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
Try not to reply.


try not to read them Wink
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:11 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

igm wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to attack others (an individual or a group) in their absence about their beliefs when they are unable to defend themselves due to their absence?


yes, i assume that there are folks i know or have known who disparage me and my ideas behind my back, who gives a ****

Some do and as you've shown some don't. Would it be okay for the majority to disparage the minority if they were weak and unable to defend themselves though? That seems immoral.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:12 pm
@igm,
No, i'm not imposing anything--i'm pointing out definitions. You get to have your own opinions--you don't get to have your own definitions.

Your perceptions (whether a problem or not) are a matter of indifference to me. Try to get over yourself.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:17 pm
@igm,
words don't hurt, or so i believe, it might be unfair that the powerful majority can disparage a weaker minority, but short of physical action i have no problem with it
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 12:33 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

words don't hurt, or so i believe, it might be unfair that the powerful majority can disparage a weaker minority, but short of physical action i have no problem with it

Can't words incite action against the weak minority? If society said it was immoral it would protect against an escalation ending in negative actions taken against this minority. In this case I would say words can hurt and have hurt in this way in the past. If you could see words escalating to negative actions against your family wouldn’t you say that the outcome would eventually become immoral and the preceding words being the cause of the immorality would make the words immoral also?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 01:27 pm
@Setanta,
I agree with Setanta regarding the essentially distasteful notion of Morality (I rarely enjoy "moralistic" people, but I have great respect for ethical beings). As I've argued before, morals are "frozen ethics", ethical determinations that have achieved "official" status (as in Moses' Decalog). By contrast, ethical behavior reflects non-petrified decisions open to philosophical debate. They take into account ever changing and relative non-standardized situational considerations (which is what life consists of). Situation ethics are never absolute; they pertain to particularies rather than universalities. All societies seem to have universally applicable tables of moral rules (norms, taboos, mores, etc.), "universalistic" social facts (cf. Durkeim). At the same time these same societies also seem to contain creative individuals prone to either ignore or at least reinterpret their meaning ideosyncratically (and with respect to concrete situational factors). The movie, The Ciderhouse Rules (with Michael Caine and Toby Spiderman), illustrates the difference between morality and ethics.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 01:42 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

I agree with Setanta regarding the essentially distasteful notion of Morality (I rarely enjoy "moralistic" people, but I have great respect for ethical beings). As I've argued before, morals are "frozen ethics", ethical determinations that have achieved "official" status (as in Moses' Decalog). By contrast, ethical behavior reflects non-petrified decisions open to philosophical debate. They take into account ever changing and relative non-standardized situational considerations (which is what life consists of). Situation ethics are never absolute; they pertain to particularies rather than universalities. All societies seem to have universally applicable tables of moral rules (norms, taboos, mores, etc.), "universalistic" social facts (cf. Durkeim). At the same time these same societies also seem to contain creative individuals prone to either ignore or at least reinterpret their meaning ideosyncratically (and with respect to concrete situational factors). The movie, The Ciderhouse Rules (with Michael Caine and Toby Spiderman), illustrates the difference between morality and ethics.


Doesn't society need universal morals especially practical ones for example against incest? We surely need to teach others that incest is immoral universally because it helps society to shun those who would attempt to uphold it. Surely the rigid upholding of some morals helps a society to function.

You are a Zen Buddhist aren't morals a guide to right conduct in Zen Buddhism? Didn't the Buddha teach moral conduct?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 02:40 pm
Moral codes can be thought of as a stick put next to a sapling to give it strength until it can stand unaided. The person guided by a group’s moral code can eventually distinguish those that should be adhered to for the sake of all and those that are superfluous. Then supported by learnt moral strength, a more flexible approach can be adopted for those morals that are no longer seen as having a contemporary benefit and are no longer to be regarded as universals. Only the very wise and the very knowledgeable can distinguish what to discard if the group as a whole is not to be harmed by the loss of the morals discarded. In this sense the arising of ethical experimentation depends on first adopting rigid moral conduct.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 02:51 pm
@igm,
That sounds like a religious cult to me. Who is setting up the moral codes you're talking about, igm?

Quote:
Only the very wise and the very knowledgeable can distinguish what to discard if the group as a whole is not to be harmed by the loss of the morals discarded.In this sense the arising of ethical experimentation depends on first adopting rigid moral conduct.


This sounds quite frightening and I am reminded of people like the Mormon fundamentalists who (disguised as wise and ethical leaders) manipulate a group of followers to the extend that their pedophile tendencies are seen as "morally" right.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Under what conditions is it morally acceptable to impose our beliefs on others, if they don’t ask?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 10:26:40
▲ ▼