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

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.

(I always enjoy watching people try to lecture JLN : ))

For example: a moderate or someone with different beliefs deciding whether to confront a fundamentalist when that fundamentalist obviously doesn’t want the person’s opinion. The moderate believes that the fundamentalist’s beliefs have the potential to harm others either directly or indirectly. The exchange could inflame the situation.

You misunderstand, I'm saying that the morals that society already has should not be discarded by just anyone because they could make a mistake that harms the rest of society. So only a very few would be able to do it without making a mistake that could do more harm than good. For example it is taught universally that incest is immoral.

igm wrote:

For example: a moderate or someone with different beliefs deciding whether to confront a fundamentalist when that fundamentalist obviously doesn’t want the person’s opinion. The moderate believes that the fundamentalist’s beliefs have the potential to harm others either directly or indirectly. The exchange could inflame the situation.

What is your definition of "harm"?

The harm the moderate believes the fundementalist could potentially cause, it it something that the majority of people would agree is harmful?

Or are you as an individual feeling it could be harmful, because it goes against your beliefs?

Sometimes a well hewn set of ethics can be reactive to the taught moral compass, so that the described compass is a trigger for disagreement. Whether the person would get to the ethics without that trigger, I would guess often. Moral ownership is problematic.

Otherwise, the taught moral compass can be a major impediment to anyone who will start to venture into ethics, i.e., thinking.

I'm out of my league here, so won't post further. I'm also not a buddhist, but usually understand JLN.

igm wrote:

You misunderstand, I'm saying that the morals that society already has should not be discarded by just anyone because they could make a mistake that harms the rest of society. So only a very few would be able to do it without making a mistake that could do more harm than good. For example it is taught universally that incest is immoral.

Yes it is! It (incest) is also illegal! What you are trying to say, igm, is that
the moral standards that are already in place and are accepted,
should be enforced, if necessary by society, right?

You seem unwilling to accept morality as being subjective.
Your "moral compass" is a product of societal ethics and taboos, it is entirely subject to the mores of the society of which you are a part.

In regard to your original question, the answer anyone might give is subject to their own societal mores. The early churches deemed themselves morally correct imposing their values on others, convert or die.
In short, the conditions are set by ones society and vary from one to the next.

Even this (incest) is arguable, say, for older cousins or even older brothers and sisters, let's say, pushing sixty, given some discussions in parts of threads on a2k.
I'm not for this, but I'm not all agog either. I see the incest thing as a biological 'imperative' that worked out as cultural, but I know some very upright religious folk who married first cousins. Not that I know all about incest in animals through the ages and whether or not it was an animal no no. So I'll amend that to say it was taken as a biological imperative.

Calling incest immoral is a mistake. In terms of biology, incest can create problems for the offspring. However, there are many marriages between blood relatives.

I do not believe anyone outside the relationship can consider personal choices as 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?