Who gets to "impose morality"?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If I had a penny for every time the phrase "imposing your morality on everybody" (and its ilk) was used in the Backroom, I could buy Creative Assembly and maybe SEGA, too. The phrase is usually used to strike out against arguments for making laws the user disagrees with.

Person A: I think we should outlaw XYZ.
Person B: Stop imposing your morality on anybody!
Awkward pause.

Person B then usually follows with a wry comment on the religious or political beliefs of Person A.

I was under the impression that most, if not all laws involved imposing one persons' morality over another. If this is the case, then the objection that one person - or one group - is imposing his or her morality over another person or group is hardly an objection at all!

So if some morals must triumph legally over others, then whose morals win? Should the majority decide the morals? Or does morality come from some other source?

[Papewaio]

Person A: I think we should outlaw XYZ.
Person B: Stop imposing your morality on anybody!

As person A I would reply: Why? You just tried to impose your morality on me?

[Steppe Merc]

Well since I'm usually person B, I'd say that because I'm more often in favore of allowing, rather than restricting, I'm not impossing as much as what person A wants to do, since it is often more restrictive.

[Byzantine Prince]

Person A: I think we should outlaw XYZ.
Person B: Stop imposing your morality on anybody!

Person A has no right to demand such outrageous things if they are not rectricted by the constitution and the carter of rights and freedoms. Somehow they sometimes suceed and everytimes they do they ruin society.


That is all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who gets to "impose morality"?

Whoever is right.

[PanzerJaeger]

So if some morals must triumph legally over others, then whose morals win?

The Right. We cant afford to play a relativity game with the amoral(immoral) leftists who seek to tear down our society.

If some pinko tells you your imposing your morality on him, tell him its for his own good.

[Kagemusha]

We live in a democratic society. The majority gets to impose it's morality on the minority.

I totally agree.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well since I'm usually person B, I'd say that because I'm more often in favore of allowing, rather than restricting, I'm not impossing as much as what person A wants to do, since it is often more restrictive.

So laws should be made (or remain unmade) so as to be as least restrictive as possible?

Example argument: banning alcoholic consumption for people under the age of 18. One side says "don't ban it" (or "remove the ban") while the other side supports the ban to reduce alcohol-related fatalities among teenagers. The morality of people (children, even) under 18 drinking alcohol is a fuzzy subject - the Ten Commandments don't bar it, and most (to my knowledge) religious systems don't cover it. But those who support the ban want (arguably) to save people from themselves (and, perhaps, save others as well).

Who is right in this case? Well, it is very likely that people could disagree on it, and that there would be no general consensus on whether one option is more moral than another. Who decides? In a democracy, like Cube pointed out, the majority does. So in a democracy, Person B really has no grounds to complain about the imposition of one morality over another.

Person A has no right to demand such outrageous things if they are not rectricted by the constitution and the carter of rights and freedoms. Somehow they sometimes suceed and everytimes they do they ruin society.


That is all.

I'm not sure I understand you (and I'm not sure I want to ). Are you saying that Person A cannot impose his morals unless they are in the Constitution and this vacuous "charter of rights and freedoms"? First of all, in the US anyway, there is no charter of rights and freedoms outside of the Constitution. Secondly, consider this example.

You are Person A. You wish to ban the action of kicking another person in the shin (I know, you probably want that to be legal ). I am Person B. I want to kick you in the shin (this is hypothetical). The Constitution is silent on the issue of shin-kicking and strangely, local law is too. So you decide to make a law banning shin-kicking. I protest that you are imposing your morality on me and there is nothing in the Constitution saying I can't kick you in the shin. What do you do? Besides kicking me repeatedly in the shins.

That's just an example. I don't think the Constitution protects shin-kicking. I also in no way condone the senseless kicking of shins - be they liberal or conservative shins, white shins or black shins, heterosexual shins or homosexual shins. Red Sox shins, however, are fair game.

I'm not sure if that answers your comment or if I misunderstood you, BP.

Whoever is right.

So, you are not a relativist, Sasaki? I apologize for mentally mislabelling you into the same category as JAG et all. However, I fear that the deciding or discover of who is truly right is about as easy as deciding whose morality "wins".

[Strike For The South]

We live in a democratic society. The majority gets to impose it's morality on the minority.

Not true we live in a republic made to protect the minoity so the mob dosent run them over wiht here morals

[Grey_Fox]

Whoever is right.

Who decides what is right?

[Azi Tohak]

Lawyers and University Professors and whoever screams the loudest.

Azi

[Don Corleone]

Well since I'm usually person B, I'd say that because I'm more often in favore of allowing, rather than restricting, I'm not impossing as much as what person A wants to do, since it is often more restrictive.

No Steppe, you're not. You frequently say that people that have religious leanings shouldn't be allowed to engage in discourse on politics. I like you, a lot, and I respect a lot of your other viewpoints, but this sort of secular fundamentalism is every bit as intolerant as islamic or christian fundamentalism.

[Steppe Merc]

No Steppe, you're not. You frequently say that people that have religious leanings shouldn't be allowed to engage in discourse on politics. I like you, a lot, and I respect a lot of your other viewpoints, but this sort of secular fundamentalism is every bit as intolerant as islamic or christian fundamentalism.

Ok, you've got me on that one.
Though it is unfair (and foolish) to try and ban religous folks from politics, I admit, the minority of nuts has gotten me paranoid towards religous peoples, in particular their politics.

[Azi Tohak]

Morality being decided by a majority would be a nice idea. But hey, I would love to see everyone in the backroom agree on what to drink with their steak at supper one night. So that won't work, too many different things to disagree on.

And as much as some people might (heck, will) dispute this, laws come from religion. For America, it is a combination of the 10 commandments and the New Testament. Actually, I think that is true about most any western nation. Eastern nations have their own religious sources for their laws.

You are right Alex, laws are about imposing one groups morality on anothers. But the fun part is deciding who gets to impose what on whom.

Azi