Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on others?

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

SheWolf said:

I am still confused... do you mean coercive forces? can you give an example?

Every human event and decision is causally caused by previous events or external forces, depending on your definition of "external forces," therefore I reject (on terms of my own definition) the idea of a "free state" where humans are free of "external forces."

Click to expand...

You are free to reject whatever you want. However, this jump in logic is more based on a preconceived notion than it is anything I have said. I said that rights are not necessarily moral devices. That one can understand them by considering the individual in the free state. The free state is one in which the individual is free from outside force, such as coercive forces. You consider the base. This is not saying that somehow the "free state" as it is known in its philosophical terms is something being pushed to actually achieve and implement. But rather to understand natural rights, one must consider the natural state; the free state. It's a thought exercise.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

Ikari said:

You are free to reject whatever you want. However, this jump in logic is more based on a preconceived notion than it is anything I have said. I said that rights are not necessarily moral devices. That one can understand them by considering the individual in the free state. The free state is one in which the individual is free from outside force, such as coercive forces. You consider the base. This is not saying that somehow the "free state" as it is known in its philosophical terms is something being pushed to actually achieve and implement. But rather to understand natural rights, one must consider the natural state; the free state. It's a thought exercise.

Click to expand...

If I consider the free state to be free of government and therefore free of coercive forces, then you would argue that humans can't handle being that free, correct? You'd argue that people in that free state can't act morally without an authoritarian force governing them and telling them right from wrong... to respect other peoples "rights" or face punishment.

I know you think rights are inalienable and it always confuses me how people argue such a thing, but think the government has to constantly define rights whenever we make a new technological or social advancement. The government is always slow in recognizing rights... especially minority rights. Somethings are inevitable, but the government isn't known for jumping to recognize rights when is going to happen in the long run... and when the government does it, it's judicial activism. It appears the government is constantly in an oppressive state by that logic..

Morals evolve and eventually the government does the inevitable and recognizes controversial rights.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

Viktyr Korimir said:

Shared values and beliefs are the basis of civilized society. It is the duty of those in charge of upholding our beliefs to impose them upon others.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree.
We were wrong to send missionaries to Africa and were were wrong to try to impose civilization on any "nation" such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
Imposing itself is wrong..
These nations will civilize themselves when they are ready.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

SheWolf said:

If I consider the free state to be free of government and therefore free of coercive forces, then you would argue that humans can't handle being that free, correct? You'd argue that people in that free state can't act morally without an authoritarian force governing them and telling them right from wrong... to respect other peoples "rights" or face punishment.

Click to expand...

No, the free state is not a state in which you consider interaction between individuals. It's where you consider the individual by itself and try to understand what it is that the individual is, for lack of a better word, entitled to. What is necessary to continue. This isn't a moral argument, the basis of natural rights is one based on thought and observation. It is not looking for argument of government, argument of government goes beyond the considerations for natural rights.

SheWolf said:

I know you think rights are inalienable and it always confuses me how people argue such a thing,

Click to expand...

You consider the free state, that is how. I think you're confusing terms and arguments here. Perchance a little Locke or Hobbes or Kant will help you understand the terms of the argument.

SheWolf said:

but think the government has to constantly define rights whenever we make a new technological or social advancement. The government is always slow in recognizing rights... especially minority rights. Somethings are inevitable, but the government isn't known for jumping to recognize rights when is going to happen in the long run... and when the government does it, it's judicial activism. It appears the government is constantly in an oppressive state by that logic..

Click to expand...

Government is one form of external force, and is oft used in the supression of legal rights or exercise of natural rights. But I'm not refering to any form of government when I refer to natural rights. Government and the philosophies which go behind the varying forms of them are another topic all together.

SheWolf said:

Morals evolve and eventually the government does the inevitable and recognizes controversial rights.

Click to expand...

Morals do evolve. Governments change the recognition of certain legal rights. Natural rights, however are not the same as legal rights. Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They give basis to the People as source of all power and sovereignty. Without natural rights, revolution against oppressive governments can never be justly argued.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

Kal'Stang said:

Morality = A doctrine or system of moral conduct

Belief = something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

Push = to urge or press the advancement, adoption, or practice of <pushed a bill in the legislature>; especially : to make aggressive efforts to sell <we're pushing ham this week>

All definations gotten from Mirriam-Webster Dictionary online.

And to narrow it down 1 more notch: I was refering to individuals, not the whole of society. But that doesn't discount that an individual can't push for legislation based on his/her morals/beliefs.

Click to expand...

Sounds more like a question about proselytizing, political indoctrination or something like that, than matters of law.

I have a right to express my beliefs in your presence. You have a right to walk away or tell me to shut up, depending on where we are.

If we're at the mall, you're free to walk away. If the mall decides I am being disruptive then management can tell me to leave. If we're in your yard or your house, you're free to tell me to shut up or leave; if I don't I'm tresspassing.

If we're both at work (ie where we are both employees), then I should be allowed to participate in normal conversations where beliefs or morality are topical. If, on the other hand, I follow you around preaching at you against your wishes, that is workplace harassment and I would be subject to disciplinary action.

If I'm on TV, and you don't want to hear it, change the channel.

All of this applies equally whether the topic is morality, religion, philosophy, or political ideologies.

In general, I'm always willing to share my beliefs with anyone who is intrested, but I don't "push" them on anyone who doesn't want to hear it.

Morals are a slightly different matter. For instance, I believe people shouldn't have children outside of marriage, and I believe this morality should be supported as a societal good. In this sense I may "push" this morality on those who do not share it because I believe it will benefit society as a whole in many ways.... just as the morality of opposing murder is a societal good.

That's where the line gets blurry...

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

MaggieD said:

As of right now, 63% of voters think we have no right to push either our morality or our beliefs on others. Are you people nutz? So, I am "nutz". At least, this time I am in the majority.

I have the right to insist that you cannot murder another human being. I have the right to insist that you can't steal my car. It's immoral to murder; it's immoral to steal. The list is long. What are you thinking???

Option #1 is the only answer.

Click to expand...

NO, it is not.
The definition of murder, stealing are very open to debate even in America, much less Arabia.
And if it is OK for us to try to impose moral values on Arabia, then it should be OK for them to impose their Sharia Law on us...
No wonder they call or consider us to be infidels..
Over the long haul, this "imposing of values" has not worked.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

Ikari said:

No, the free state is not a state in which you consider interaction between individuals. It's where you consider the individual by itself and try to understand what it is that the individual is, for lack of a better word, entitled to. What is necessary to continue. This isn't a moral argument, the basis of natural rights is one based on thought and observation. It is not looking for argument of government, argument of government goes beyond the considerations for natural rights.

Click to expand...

You are really confusing me more... The free state was first a state free of external force.. now it's a state in which I must consider the individual by themselves and try to understand what they are and entitled to. I am not following you...

What is the argument of government? and you know rights as being natural through observation? example?

You consider the free state, that is how. I think you're confusing terms and arguments here. Perchance a little Locke or Hobbes or Kant will help you understand the terms of the argument.

Click to expand...

I have read a lot of those philosophers.. enough to know I disagree with Hobbes. Of course they write so much, upon volumes of stuff, I haven't read it all. Exactly what should I read which is where you are getting this stuff from?

Government is one form of external force, and is oft used in the supression of legal rights or exercise of natural rights. But I'm not refering to any form of government when I refer to natural rights. Government and the philosophies which go behind the varying forms of them are another topic all together.



Morals do evolve. Governments change the recognition of certain legal rights. Natural rights, however are not the same as legal rights. Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They give basis to the People as source of all power and sovereignty. Without natural rights, revolution against oppressive governments can never be justly argued.

Click to expand...

And yet philosophers who have argued no such thing as natural rights exist like Marx and Rousseau... have had revolutions organized and attempted in the name of their philosophy.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

The Giant Noodle said:

We have a right to push both our beliefs and morality on others. It doesnt mean that its the RIGHT thing to do though.

Click to expand...

True, but, travel over to Arabia as tell them that. And here in America, many will disagree, as I have discovered.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

The government should circumscribe its promotion of morality to values which contribute to the formation and support of a strong republic.

Re: Do we generall have a right to push our morality and/or our belief system on othe

SheWolf said:

You are really confusing me more... The free state was first a state free of external force.. now it's a state in which I must consider the individual by themselves and try to understand what they are and entitled to. I am not following you...

What is the argument of government? and you know rights as being natural through observation? example?

Click to expand...

The free state, the natural state if you will, is not an argument any form of government. It's consideration of natural rights. If you want to contemplate whether or not a person can have natural rights; you have to examine the free state. I really think you're continually trying to read something there which isn't. You are perhaps confusing terms or thinking this is an argument for government. It is not. The initial response was that I had said that we do not have the right to force our beliefs or morals on others, rather that any just system is one in which the rights and liberties of the individual are recognized. To whit, someone responded that rights and liberties are a form of morals. I responded saying it is not necessarily true; one can consider the rights of the individual not through individual moral evaluation, but rather through philosophy and observation. The base of which revolves around considering a free state of the individual to understand whether or not there are rights or not. You keep trying to interpose other things and lay claim to that which I do not lay claim to. The confusion is, most likely, completely on your part.

SheWolf said:

I have read a lot of those philosophers.. enough to know I disagree with Hobbes. Of course they write so much, upon volumes of stuff, I haven't read it all. Exactly what should I read which is where you are getting this stuff from?

Click to expand...

Disagree or not, the point is that with Hobbes or Kant or Locke, they are not making moral calls with their philosophy. When they talk about natural rights they are deriving it not from some moral basis but from a philosophical consideration of the individual in an environment free from force. That was the only point being made; natural rights are not derived from an argument of morality but rather from one of philosophy (thought) and observation.

SheWolf said:

And yet philosophers who have argued no such thing as natural rights exist like Marx and Rousseau... have had revolutions organized and attempted in the name of their philosophy.

Click to expand...

Indeed, are not some just argument as I said. They are based on a particular moral code and some ideal of what one thinks is "right".