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

Incest is a great example of the subjectivity--I should say cultural nature--of morality: In many societies it is forbidden to marry a first cousin (having sex is another matter). As I recall, in some societies marriage with a "first cross-cousin" is the ideal match. A first cross-cousin is one whose connecting parent is the sibling of your parent of the opposite sex. I would be encouraged to marry the daughter of the sister of my father if we lived in a patrilineal society wherein lineage membership is traced through males (she would be a member of her father's, not my father's, lineage). I would be discouraged from marrying the daughter of the brother of my father in such a society because she (my first parallel-cousin) and I would be members of the same patrilineal lineage. THAT would be incest only in that kind of society, even though in both cases my cousin and I are of equal genetic distance. In such societies groups (lineages) rather than individuals are what count in the calculation of incest.

Igm, I don't disagree with all your points. I think that all societies have moral codes because they need them to provide gross standards for behavior, just as we think we need legal systems for social order and behavioral regulation. My point referred to you and me as individuals, not just members of societies. I wouldn't want to live in an amoral or anarchistic society, But at the same time I wouldn't want to marry a woman who was "moralistic", who, instead of applying her intelligence to the solution of ethical problems just looked to some moral recipe book of standard operating procedures or her minister, rabbi, or priest to decide for her. Ugh.

1 Reply

@igm,

Well it depends on the person. To some people it may be morally right, to others it may be wrong. You actually don't know until you do so. Judging the person before hand won't help because if you don't help and they wanted it then you're in the wrong and if you do help and they don't want it, then you're still in the wrong. But you won't know until you do so. What's morally right is dependent on the person. If you help and the person doesn't want it, then it is what it is because your intentions were good.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

...For example, I personally don't think using drugs is an immoral thing so the law forbidding the use of drugs is already found to be an immoral one by me. So if you were to try and persuade a person to refrain from using drugs then yes the imposed belief with a sound based argument would be immoral.

Your reply seems reasonable to me. As an aside: are drugs life enhancing? I’d say that the individual’s perception of the experience is the true happiness deliverer and that drugs are therefore a relatively dangerous means to an end, when alternatives which are less dangerous are available. This I believe makes drugs at the very least unnecessary.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That is the "best" example. It's up to you to challenge it with whatever reasoning you can find.

Many christians say that homosexuality is immoral. Why? Two people in love can decide what kind of relationship they wish regardless of how others look upon them. Why is "love" immoral?

Some incest could be argued is not immoral but I'd argue that some obvious examples are and those are the one's that we should all say are immoral and deep down even if we ignore the fact we know they are.

Love, any true love is never immoral and probably an inherent human quality.

0 Replies

@JPhil,

JPhil wrote:

Well it depends on the person. To some people it may be morally right, to others it may be wrong. You actually don't know until you do so. Judging the person before hand won't help because if you don't help and they wanted it then you're in the wrong and if you do help and they don't want it, then you're still in the wrong. But you won't know until you do so. What's morally right is dependent on the person. If you help and the person doesn't want it, then it is what it is because your intentions were good.

I agree intention is a huge factor and looking at one's intention is a good moral compass. Your other points are well made.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

It’s one thing to say (and I don’t disagree with your examples) that some types of incest may not be universally immoral but I’d argue the most obvious ones are and even if a society disregards a father having sex with his nine year old child, all in that society know instinctively that it is immoral.

If those who are still finding their way from childhood to adulthood don’t have a moral framework to guide them it just makes their life more complicated. Then eventually if they are able, using that as a basis, they can experiment and develop their own ethics if they wish. By knowing we can keep or discard morals, if we don’t know what they are, then we have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ so to speak.

If you are talking only about yourself then you are probably able to be a ‘purely ethical being’. I think ‘sentanta’ whom you agreed with was being more than that and so your agreement with him, confused my understanding of the subject of your predicate, so to speak. I’m not sure how ‘distasteful’ comes into it either, unless just directed at the ‘moralistic’. I believe initial moral precepts are useful along with examining one’s motives just before carrying out any important action. Ethics depend on first knowing some morals even if the morals are later rejected.

2 Replies

@igm,

Granted, ethical calculations probably take into account a background of culturally ingrained moral norms. I wonder if it is possible for feral children to grow up as ethical beings sans moral values.My point was that in situation ethics there is a creative element; one does not simply follow rules, like a well-socialized moral automaton.

2 Replies

@igm,

You're into an area where we all know what you describe hurts the child; that is also a crime. We are talking about incest where both "adult" parties agree to the union. In your example, it's forced upon the child. Everybody 'should' know that's wrong.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're into an area where we all know what you describe hurts the child; that is also a crime. We are talking about incest where both "adult" parties agree to the union. In your example, it's forced upon the child. Everybody 'should' know that's wrong.

Point taken but an immoral line can be drawn somewhere, surely e.g. a father and an adult consenting daughter (subconscious paternal pressure could never be ruled out even if there was consent) is immoral universally or should be. The majority consensus and one's own intuition would flag it as immoral IMHO.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I wonder if it is possible for feral children to grow up as ethical beings sans moral values.

Not sure but there maybe evidence for:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/ethics/documents/ethics/primates_nyt.pdf

"Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the
brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to
the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the
primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be
seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes."

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

My point was that in situation ethics there is a creative element; one does not simply follow rules, like a well-socialized moral automaton.

I agree that you are qualified or seem to be to pursue this ethical approach. But for many it will arise from a moral grounding taught by others until they too become qualified to pursue their own ethical approach, some won't be able to, some won't want to, and some will fail and live an ethically confused life which may or may not be a problem for them and/or the rest of us.

If they have an understanding of what is believed by the majority to be immoral then they at least have that as a reference point. If society shuns morality and just has ad-hoc ethics I believe some may suffer because of it.

1 Reply

@igm,

With humans, all variants are possible. We all know that rape is always a crime by majority standards. What is acceptable sexual behavior is subjective to each individual.

What matters is what two consenting adults do; what business is it of others who wish to impose their own morals against people they don't even know or care about.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

With humans, all variants are possible. We all know that rape is always a crime by majority standards. What is acceptable sexual behavior is subjective to each individual.

What matters is what two consenting adults do; what business is it of others who wish to impose their own morals against people they don't even know or care about.

On the face of it you could be correct but shouldn’t those consenting adults at least know society’s current moral benchmark? They can then gauge whether their behavior is within social norms of acceptability. Ditch all moral references and ditch this ability to gauge one’s actions, which even in private may be valuable to one or the other of the parties involved. With knowledge, consent given can be retracted in the light of that knowledge or never offered in the first place.

1 Reply

@igm,

Why are you worried about how other people's morals differ from yours beyond the point that there are laws against deviant behavior and rape?

Besides, how do you expect to know what people think - on anything?

1 Reply

@igm,

Igm, I agree with your statement that "If [people] have an understanding of what is believed by the majority to be immoral then they at least have that as a reference point. If society shuns morality and just has ad-hoc ethics I believe some may suffer because of it."
But remember my point: a general moral framework is necessary for the well-being of societies (which is undoubtedly why they are found to be cultural universals), but individuals who would live a mature life cannot live as moral automatons. They must generate ethical decisions with both a moral grounding (your point of reference) and an acknowledgement of the dynamic complexity of concrete ethical life.
Morals are general (even abstractly universal) but ethical situtions are concrete and particular. One must choose among the moral rules that might be applicable to a particular situation. And how he edits, or interprets, them to better acknowledge the realities of his ethical problems reflects the quality of his ethical and moral life.
This shows me the value of these threads. Without your reminder of the relevance and value of moral systems I would probably have overstated the importance of ad-hoc (as you call it) situational ethics. Together--in non-competitive debate--I (can I presume the same for you?) have arrived at a more balanced perspective.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLN, I'm going to disagree with you a little bit here. When you talk about

Quote:

I agree with your statement that "If [people] have an understanding of what is believed by the majority to be immoral then they at least have that as a reference point.

, you must necessarily include what many christians believe to be immoral - including homosexual sin. I do not believe that's a good compass for morality.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why are you worried about how other people's morals differ from yours beyond the point that there are laws against deviant behavior and rape?

Besides, how do you expect to know what people think - on anything?

Laws don’t protect individuals until the action has happened. An understanding of what is immoral helps prevent one from becoming a victim or contemplating turning away from being the perpetrator.

I don’t know what people think, of course. But society runs even though we can’t know what people think. Morals are important to a secular society. Not imposed by God but reasoned (i.e. which morals should be included) by secular human beings in a democracy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's what I was talking about when I was going on about moral "standards" being possible triggers.. something to consider and distance oneself from if you disagree. A reference point can be dealt with in more than one way.

0 Replies

@igm,

I disagree. The majority of Americans believe in one religion or another that teaches morals. Out of this group, most also understand the laws of the land, but we still have sex crimes. Even well-known politicians are guilty of immoral behavior - including priests, who are supposed to be the teachers and examples of moral behavior. I'm also certain priests also understand sex laws.

I would like to see proof of your statement that

Quote:

An understanding of what is immoral helps prevent one from becoming a victim or contemplating turning away from being the perpetrator.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Igm, I agree with your statement that "If [people] have an understanding of what is believed by the majority to be immoral then they at least have that as a reference point. If society shuns morality and just has ad-hoc ethics I believe some may suffer because of it."
But remember my point: a general moral framework is necessary for the well-being of societies (which is undoubtedly why they are found to be cultural universals), but individuals who would live a mature life cannot live as moral automatons. They must generate ethical decisions with both a moral grounding (your point of reference) and an acknowledgement of the dynamic complexity of concrete ethical life.
Morals are general (even abstractly universal) but ethical situtions are concrete and particular. One must choose among the moral rules that might be applicable to a particular situation. And how he edits, or interprets, them to better acknowledge the realities of his ethical problems reflects the quality of his ethical and moral life.
This shows me the value of these threads. Without your reminder of the relevance and value of moral systems I would probably have overstated the importance of ad-hoc (as you call it) situational ethics. Together--in non-competitive debate--I (can I presume the same for you?) have arrived at a more balanced perspective.

I would agree that you have amalgamated the two positions and for the thinkers among us the flexibility of situational ethics offers the flexibility that real world situations demand. There is a group of people however, that won’t be able to utilize both, at particular points in time, for those morals provide a prerequisite basis and a possible stepping stone to situational ethics.

0 Replies

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

Quick Links

My Account

able2know