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

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.

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.

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.

Why should the moderate's beliefs carry any more weight than the beliefs of the fundamentalist? where does the moderate obtain the right to confront the fundamentalist?

Offering an opinion or a differing view is one thing. Imposing one's opinions/beliefs/views is a very different matter.

I believe that it is never morally acceptable for an individual to impose his/her beliefs on others. It is necessary for the collective to impose belief, but there should be a vast range in the middle where individuals are free to decide for themselves. For instance the extremes should be subject to the criminal or mental health systems, but otherwise the state and individuals only have the right to advocate for their desired outcome of the personal decision. Shaming and shunning are sometimes acceptable and other forms of the excercise of power are sometimes acceptable, the more out of step with the norms the individual opinion the more the use of power is acceptable.

As I've already stated, we already have moral teachings within our environment. There is no such thing as "if the majority doesn't want it." That's an extreme approach that has no reality.

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.

igm wrote:

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.

Well a huge majority of people like quick results to obtain some happiness and drugs make a very quick method but like you said, a dangerous one. Some are willing to put up with the danger for that quick dose of happiness. I think if you can discover a better method, then by all means it would be more ideal to take it. But once again, if it is not a quick method, people will tend to shy away from it.

I personally don't use drugs or even drink, but I understand them and the freedom for others to choose should remain available. Even those who have determined drug use to be "evil" should not impose their will on others, because that only creates additional "evil" but sadly very few people who view drugs as bad see this aspect. They impose their will onto society and neglect to notice that it has created other problems which they ignore. This is where imposing your belief onto others is immoral.

a courtroom or a church is the only place i can think of, but only moral in that the majority of folks uphold the beliefs of said institutions

i for one tend to uphold the law (though i don't always follow or agree with it) but disagree vehemently with most ecclesiastical rhetoric

Majority does not mean right.

But in a democracy the majority should get what they want, right or wrong, the majority of the time. They must be put on the path of righteousness through changing their hearts and minds, not by oppression.

. I would impose myself (i.e., my cultural values) on a society that practices clitorectomies without worrying about its violation of my relativism

Quote:

But in a democracy the majority should get what they want, right or wrong, the majority of the time. They must be put on the path of righteousness through changing their hearts and minds, not by oppression.

I don't agree. In a civil society the rule of law must protect all of us from majority extremism.

There are countless examples of abuse by the majority. That abuse results in destruction to the whole society.

You may be right in the definition of a pure democracy, but I don't agree that is the best form of government.