Are you allowed to enforce your subjective morality upon others?

[Thanatos]

I like people who stand up for what they believe in, even if they're wrong. It's one thing to not know what to do and another to not know that you should do.

The alternative is to have the mentality of livestock. Sometimes the best thing you can do is not to quietly keep to yourself but rather to trample all over the farmer's own subjective morality, break through the weak fence and make a run for the hills.

[BlackSheep]

I understand what you mean Blackie but it's a fine line between communicating your personal ethics to someone and forcing your ethics on them. In the broadest sense I believe to communicate your ethics is an attempt to get(force) others to follow them too. If no one ever attempted to communicate their ethics to others it would be a strange world.

While I agree there will be conflict of sorts at some point, there is a huge difference between communication and forcing. I am unsure about you, but my personal ethics is about being completely honest and open. I know most people are not even close to this and I do not think lies cause enough harm in general to need to be enforced. I have no desire to enforce that morality on others. My morals are also against drugs in general and yet I think they should be decriminalized as criminalizing them does not avoid damage in general and in fact does harm on its own in terms of money. I have no desire to enforce my morality on others.
In fact the main moral that I have that I think is important is to not force morality on others when there is no harm. This can only be achieved through communication.

[BlackSheep]

I like people who stand up for what they believe in, even if they're wrong. It's one thing to not know what to do and another to not know that you should do.

I am all in favour for people who stand up for what they believe in as well, because then we all learn how many kinds of morality there are which helps us know we can not enforce the correct one, because there is not a correct one.

The alternative is to have the mentality of livestock. Sometimes the best thing you can do is not to quietly keep to yourself but rather to trample all over the farmer's own subjective morality, break through the weak fence and make a run for the hills.

In a very symbolic sense, yes.

[Charlatan]

I couldn't agree more.

But that is someone else subjecting a person to their subjective morality also. A cop kicking the S**T out of a criminal. Morality hasn't always been they same. Single mother were frowned upon (and not for the reasons some are today). Also, Crucifixion isn't done today not only because it's too much like hard work, it would be classed inhumane treatment.

Well, what is subjective about morality? I have just started a topic on cultural science, which leads me to believe that all cultures are about the same things, and therefore all laws are supposed to be about the same things - preserving the people. This is called societal behaviour.

If someone threatens the well being of another, then it is deemed anti societal. In that case the person must be punished so they do not do it again. Then I beg the question, do two wrongs make a right? In the case of the death penalty, no they don't.

I suggest there be a fine for all wrongs done. This will shore up the countries with monies and then the people will not go to a crowded cell, taxing the good people further. See those two wrongs do not make a right, jail, but a fine would, as it mends the divide in the people by taxing the person to make it right. Fines are not a wrong I figure...

Then there is the case of murder. If you were to murder someone then you also get fined, but not removed from society. How often do murderers murder again? Think of gangsters and thugs, they always would consider murdering again, but if they are placed in jail then they are punished. Two wrongs. If they are fined then they might not be able to pay, placing them into state service to pay off the fine. This mends things.

Now, what is breaking the law? Murder is anti societal, so should be dealt with. Not wearing your burqa is considered unmodest, so will be a crime too, like seeing a man's penis on television. There is always modesty in every culture, but it is tuned in to the culture specifically. Is this subjective? No, it is just not modest. If you were to relay your values onto someone else, as is the case with culture and laws, then it is like enforcing behaviour on them. Behaviour is to behave, this means that the person abides by the tradiations of their parents and country already there. Since when does someone go to ssou th america and order that everyone speak french? Behviour is relayed to the next person from the parents usually, and this gets them their parents support.

Now is this relaying of behavioural expectations wrong? Well, what is right? Conserving the people into a state where they are all comfortable is the point of laws and culture, so if it helps people feel comfortable, it is not wrong.

Yes you should be able to apply your 'subjective' morality on others.

[Darklordabc]

Firstly, its worth mentioning "enforcing" might of been a poor choice of words, I think people are imagining violence means of coercion. I really mean any sort of effort to change the other person's behaviour, from converstaional pressure to military pressure and everything in between.

I know most people are not even close to this and I do not think lies cause enough harm in general to need to be enforced.

In fact the main moral that I have that I think is important is to not force morality on others when there is no harm. This can only be achieved through communication.

If you deem something is immoral, doesnt that necessarily means that some harm is been caused by it? That what makes something immoral right?
Being the case, that you should oppose any immorality that causes harm and also being the case that all forms of immorlaity cause some harm (from subtle (littering) to extreme (genocide)) then should'nt you oppose all immorality, including the simple sin of lying?

My point is, if your justfied in stopping a murder, by the same token, your justfied to try to stop people from lying. Obviously your amount of effort should scale with the level of harm being caused by the immorality.

Its obvious that neither does

Thats all I wanted to hear.

[Sean989]

Well, what is subjective about morality? I have just started a topic on cultural science, which leads me to believe that all cultures are about the same things, and therefore all laws are supposed to be about the same things - preserving the people. This is called societal behaviour.

If someone threatens the well being of another, then it is deemed anti societal. In that case the person must be punished so they do not do it again. Then I beg the question, do two wrongs make a right? In the case of the death penalty, no they don't.

I suggest there be a fine for all wrongs done. This will shore up the countries with monies and then the people will not go to a crowded cell, taxing the good people further. See those two wrongs do not make a right, jail, but a fine would, as it mends the divide in the people by taxing the person to make it right. Fines are not a wrong I figure...

Then there is the case of murder. If you were to murder someone then you also get fined, but not removed from society. How often do murderers murder again? Think of gangsters and thugs, they always would consider murdering again, but if they are placed in jail then they are punished. Two wrongs. If they are fined then they might not be able to pay, placing them into state service to pay off the fine. This mends things.

Now, what is breaking the law? Murder is anti societal, so should be dealt with. Not wearing your burqa is considered unmodest, so will be a crime too, like seeing a man's penis on television. There is always modesty in every culture, but it is tuned in to the culture specifically. Is this subjective? No, it is just not modest. If you were to relay your values onto someone else, as is the case with culture and laws, then it is like enforcing behaviour on them. Behaviour is to behave, this means that the person abides by the tradiations of their parents and country already there. Since when does someone go to ssou th america and order that everyone speak french? Behviour is relayed to the next person from the parents usually, and this gets them their parents support.

Now is this relaying of behavioural expectations wrong? Well, what is right? Conserving the people into a state where they are all comfortable is the point of laws and culture, so if it helps people feel comfortable, it is not wrong.

Yes you should be able to apply your 'subjective' morality on others.

Morality is subjective in many ways. As you point out it is instilled by parents but also from a great deal of sources throughout and individuals life. I also agree that many/all cultures have remarkable similarities and that the law should protect the people (all peoples). Also two wrongs do not make a right.

A fine for all crimes even murder (and I suppose rape also?) For less serious crime then yes it seems better to fine minor offenses

You ask 'How often do murderers murder again?' That of course is dependent on the individual case. A 60 year old man who murdered his wife in a crime of passion, I doubt he would murder again (although not implausible that he may). A man in his mid-twenties (Call him Nate) who murdered his father and when the authorities get involved the find the father half eaten in the freezer. The latter is where I would have a problem with just a fine. Money would not help the emotional scars of the family and also could create a problem within their community (based on the communities 'subjective' morality). Say a local father sees Nate talking to his daughter, what is he to do? Or think? Is it probable that some altercation may occur, the father being the perpetrator? In which he gets a fine for his actions, thus decreasing maintenance costs for prisons but increasing crime related behaviors? I know these situations arise anyway but on a lesser scale.

I agree with a lot of what you say in your next paragraph but I must say Morality doesn't solely come from culture or parents or their country. It's an amalgamation which is added to by an individuals unique experience of Morality. I am not saying everyone his a unique Morality, I am saying people have different experience of Morality which can affect the individual in a variety of ways. Behavior is not to behave. Behavior is a word commonly used to describe the manner in which people conduct themselves (or on an unrelated note used to describe the functions/activities of plants or animals).

Relying on behavioral expectations is not wrong. What is? Expecting that all peoples of a earth conform to a individual belief or way of doing things when there are in most cases many right and wrong ways to do things. Morality is subjective for that reason (and many others I have stated in previous posts) I am against forcing it on anyone. That is not to say it can't be communicated or expressed. I mean at the end of the day what is the point of an idea if it isn't expressed.

[Charlatan]

Morality is subjective in many ways. As you point out it is instilled by parents but also from a great deal of sources throughout and individuals life. I also agree that many/all cultures have remarkable similarities and that the law should protect the people (all peoples). Also two wrongs do not make a right.

A fine for all crimes even murder (and I suppose rape also?) For less serious crime then yes it seems better to fine minor offenses

You ask 'How often do murderers murder again?' That of course is dependent on the individual case. A 60 year old man who murdered his wife in a crime of passion, I doubt he would murder again (although not implausible that he may). A man in his mid-twenties (Call him Nate) who murdered his father and when the authorities get involved the find the father half eaten in the freezer. The latter is where I would have a problem with just a fine. Money would not help the emotional scars of the family and also could create a problem within their community (based on the communities 'subjective' morality). Say a local father sees Nate talking to his daughter, what is he to do? Or think? Is it probable that some altercation may occur, the father being the perpetrator? In which he gets a fine for his actions, thus decreasing maintenance costs for prisons but increasing crime related behaviors? I know these situations arise anyway but on a lesser scale.

I agree with a lot of what you say in your next paragraph but I must say Morality doesn't solely come from culture or parents or their country. It's an amalgamation which is added to by an individuals unique experience of Morality. I am not saying everyone his a unique Morality, I am saying people have different experience of Morality which can affect the individual in a variety of ways. Behavior is not to behave. Behavior is a word commonly used to describe the manner in which people conduct themselves (or on an unrelated note used to describe the functions/activities of plants or animals).

Relying on behavioral expectations is not wrong. What is? Expecting that all peoples of a earth conform to a individual belief or way of doing things when there are in most cases many right and wrong ways to do things. Morality is subjective for that reason (and many others I have stated in previous posts) I am against forcing it on anyone. That is not to say it can't be communicated or expressed. I mean at the end of the day what is the point of an idea if it isn't expressed.

Well I am routed in complete objectivity in all things, so allow me to argue with you. Maybe I will take a page out of parliament and deck you one? Just kidding!

Objectivity is universal. If you say you have ten dollars then you have ten dollars. If you say you have less than ten dollars, that is also objective as you literally have less than ten dollars. If you have some birds in the hand then so be it, also objective, as literally, you get where I am going with this?

Now when it comes to morality, all morals are based on the society they live in. When young the children have morality - they help little birds and cats and stuff, be nice to old people, that sort of thing. This means that morality comes from inside, and behaviour from outer sources.

Then you could also say that behaviour is based on the norms of society, along with the laws. The laws reflect the norms of that society, so are objective in the way they are relayed onto their little ones, and anything short of a revolution will see them behave in that manner.

I take it this thread was supposed to say why we should not force our troops into iraq and afghanistan? There was a need for this because terrorism was spreading and the iraqi people were not free. The slaves were not free, europe during the second world war was not free...

[Thanatos]

I am all in favour for people who stand up for what they believe in as well, because then we all learn how many kinds of morality there are which helps us know we can not enforce the correct one, because there is not a correct one.

What makes you so sure? I mean, why can't some moralities make more sense and work for more people than others?

[Sean989]

Well I am routed in complete objectivity in all things, so allow me to argue with you. Maybe I will take a page out of parliament and deck you one? Just kidding!

Objectivity is universal. If you say you have ten dollars then you have ten dollars. If you say you have less than ten dollars, that is also objective as you literally have less than ten dollars. If you have some birds in the hand then so be it, also objective, as literally, you get where I am going with this?

Now when it comes to morality, all morals are based on the society they live in. When young the children have morality - they help little birds and cats and stuff, be nice to old people, that sort of thing. This means that morality comes from inside, and behaviour from outer sources.

Then you could also say that behaviour is based on the norms of society, along with the laws. The laws reflect the norms of that society, so are objective in the way they are relayed onto their little ones, and anything short of a revolution will see them behave in that manner.

I take it this thread was supposed to say why we should not force our troops into iraq and afghanistan? There was a need for this because terrorism was spreading and the iraqi people were not free. The slaves were not free, europe during the second world war was not free...

Objectivity is universal but not to all concepts or ideas. Also I would say your description was illuminating but it doesn't explain Morality is objective (or subjective).

All morals are based on society, even the most brutal and heinous? And everyone experiences Morality though society as a collective? I doubt that.

Behavior is based on the norms of society? Is behavior not in actual fact 'the norms of society'?

In regards to your last paragraph, I think terrorism and it's idea has been 'spreading' for generations and the damage it has done continues to grow.

[Charlatan]

Objectivity is universal but not to all concepts or ideas. Also I would say your description was illuminating but it doesn't explain Morality is objective (or subjective).

All morals are based on society, even the most brutal and heinous? And everyone experiences Morality though society as a collective? I doubt that.

Behavior is based on the norms of society? Is behavior not in actual fact 'the norms of society'?

In regards to your last paragraph, I think terrorism and it's idea has been 'spreading' for generations and the damage it has done continues to grow.

Oh, okay, I see. Confusing.

[BlackSheep]

What makes you so sure? I mean, why can't some moralities make more sense and work for more people than others?

Some that make more sense and work for more people is not the same as correct. My comments before have made it clear I think we need to establish some, but only where they actually harm people.

[Sean989]

Some that make more sense and work for more people is not the same as correct. My comments before have made it clear I think we need to establish some, but only where they actually harm people.

How would these universal Morals be established? But more importantly how would they be maintain? As I have said before many people are good at talking theoretically about such subjects but by their actions show little or no will in applying their morals in the real world. How could we ensure all people who agreed to these morals would walk the walk and talk the talk?