Forcing morality on others?

@Nickname - Right over your head guy. Think critically for a second. Telling people whom they can or can mistreat or hate is forcing your morality on them.

@Paul - Like it or not, when we as a society tell people what they can or can't do, we are imposing our morality on them. We are forcing it on them. There's really no way around admitting that.

@Zombie - I didn't insinuate that they are equal at all. I suggested that they are equal in the sense that they are forcing morality on others. No way around that. Religious and non-religious people both do it. The claim, "you don't have the right to force your morality on me" is itself a moral claim, unsubstaintianted in this indifferent universe.

@Zombie - Additionally, there is no such thing as versions of morality being unequal unless you subscribe to some sort of theism. If you're atheist, or agnostic (such as myself), eventually you have to admit that no version of morality is objectively superior to another. Absent of theism morals are reduced to preferences, but are not rooted in anything deeper.

@Chances - I take your answer to mean that you agree that we all force our moral ideals on others. And further you are saying this is a good thing because you're in favor of societies enforcing a version of morality that you agree with.

@Adbijah - Yes! You're right on. That's a perfect example of legislating morality and forcing beliefs on someone. I'm not arguing that forcing beliefs on someone is right or wrong, but that we all do, both the religious and the non-religious.

@Steve - Ok, it might be a definitions thing. But what I was trying to point out is that it's not just the religious people who force their morals on others. If I tell you that you can't harm an innocent person, I'm forcing my moral beliefs on you if you happen to disagree with me. And guess what society is forcing that belief. And if someone does begin to harm someone, they can get pepper sprayed, tazered, the crap beat out of them or even shot by police in effort to prevent or punish those who have violated these moral codes.

@Steve - If a person sees a kid getting attacked and he jumps in and fights on his behalf, is that acting like a beast? If a cop sees a woman being attacked by a group of men and uses violent force to stop that, is that acting like a beast? No, I'm sure you subscribe to a moral code which involves defending innocent people, by force if necessary. Now let's say someone doesn't agree with that and they feel that people should be able to violate whomever they want. You would not only disagree with that person, but would be perfectly happy forcing them to live by your version of morality by using the law to enforce your standards of rights and justice on them. You are effectively forcing your morality on them. We all do it.

@Zombie

"So . . . you didn't insinuate they are equal, but then you did. Yeah, that totally makes sense."

Let me rephrase: They are equal in the sense that they are both instances of forcing morality on others. There's no way around that.

@Zombie

"Yes, but you're equating things in a vacuum. You're saying that a religious extremist who blows himself up in a crowded market and a guy who shoots a burglar are the same, since they both kill people. The latter might very well have a value along the lines of "I don't wanna die," but his enforcement of this value is strictly reactionary. Context: it matters."

The actions they do and the reasons for them are very different. But they are both instances of doing what is morally right to the individual. Both the terrorist and the burgular shooter think their act is just. So how do we adjudicate between very conflicting moral philosophies as a society? We force our morality on them! We come to the conclusion that our morality is best and that everyone who doesn't subscribe to it or who violates it will be punished by law. We band together, set up government and force our morality down people's throats. I'm not saying that right or

cont...wrong, just trying to get people like you to acknowledge that you, like the fundies, are very content to force your version of morality on others!

"...A more pertinent and defensible statement might be, "You don't have a right to initiate force against me."

Who gives you that right? Since there is no god, from where does that right come? You've acknowledged that in this universe there's nothing innately right or wrong. The universe is indifferent, so from where does this right come? It comes from our invention! We invent these ideas of right and wrong! Because they help create the society that we wish to live in. We fabricate moral worldviews and force them on people who may not wish to participate in them. The right you described only exists in our relative system of morality and is rooted in nothing deeper than "I view it as best because I say so." As a society we are going to force this morality on others "because we say so." So in the sense that you are forcing your version of morality on others, you are exactly like the religious fundies.

"I think that morality can be derived from reason, so clearly I don't agree that all moral claims are equal, in the same sense that I don't agree that all logical or mathematical claims being equal, or that one generic strategy is as good as another. Propositions can be evaluated as objectively better or worse even if the source is a preference or value."

This is manifestly wrong. Egoists and nihilists are generally among some of the most learned and rationale people. Rational agents might disagree on what is morally right, including the reality that there is no moral rightness, only moral preferences. Read up on nihilism. It is an extremely rational worldview given the premise that no god exists. There is nothing objective about morality like there is with mathematical truths. Mathematical laws are descriptive. Morality is prescriptive. Morality is a matter of preference. Bereft of an objective verity, like god, morality is reduced to preference. It is subj

ective.

"Even if that is true, theism doesn't solve the problem. In fact, I would argue that theism is worse off than non-theism. Members of theistic religions make moral claims, but their claimed source is a floating abstraction, functionally rendering so-called theistic morality as little more than a string of "because I said so" directives that invariably piggyback on their secular counterparts (usually lagging behind by a few decades or centuries)."

I'm not arguing whether theistic morals are better or worse than morals derived from another system. What I'm saying is that given the presupposition of theism, morality can be objective. So in that case, when you're forcing morality on others, you are forcing an objective version of morality.

Given the presuppostion of atheism you are forcing subjective morals on others. Both are equally instances of forcing morality on others, however, one is rooted in something objective while the other is rooted in

the shifting sands of preference.

I'm agnostic so I admit, my values are nothing more than "my" preferences. And if I want others to live by them I am forcing "my" version of morality on them. When it comes to forcing others to live by my morals I recognize that what I'm doing is no different than what the fundies do.

You argue that rational consensus is a sufficient basis for objective morality. But you would have to first prove that nihilism is false before you can make that claim.

So to recap:

There's no obective morality written upon the universe

Rational people may hold opposing rationale worldviews with regard to morality

Therefore, absent god, there is no objective morality

Therefore you like a society where a version of morality that you argree with is forced upon everyone even though no such view of moral obligations exist in objective reality

Hence; you are no different than the fundies with respect to forcing morality on others.