Comments on: Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?

By: Lynden Jensen

Lynden Jensen — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:02:28 +0000

‘it is wrong to impose your moral beliefs onto others’
Isn’t the person who is saying that imposing his moral beliefs on you?

By: Phil Ruse

Phil Ruse — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:28:08 +0000

“only zealous religious types”… Only?!

“the concept of respecting other people’s beliefs seems to be lost on the religious.”

I find intolerance exists across all sections of society, religious or otherwise. I’m not religious but it’s funny how I always feel the need to state that when acting as the defence! Take out the “religious” from this debate and you’ve got a fascinating (and I’d argue more balanced) conversation

By: Theology Geek NZ » Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism

Theology Geek NZ » Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:02:03 +0000

[...] Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:45:23 +0000

I’m not sure what the dividing line should be between legally actionable morality and the other sort. I have some sympathy with Aquinas position here:

as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be “possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.” Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

This is probably another “to do” blog post.

By: Desmognathus

Desmognathus — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:00:58 +0000

If “imposing our beliefs onto others” means enshrining those beliefs into law, obviously there’s nothing universally wrong with it; I believe that murder is wrong, and fortunately it is also illegal. However, it’s less obvious what other criteria must be met for an action to be made illegal. A woman flirting with her friend’s boyfriend might be morally wrong, but most of us don’t think that it should be illegal. I think that it’s morally right for me to play with my kid and keep her TV consumption to a reasonable level, but I don’t think that there should be a law to that effect.

I’m not sure what the dividing line should be between legally actionable morality and the other sort.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:29:44 +0000

Matt- you make so many good points. Something that has always bothered me is that the non-believers want to pick and choose which Christian ethics they want to follow. They complain about Christian values being imposed on them, but fail to recognize that the freedoms we enjoy are based on God’s existence. Furthermore, how can we define the words “good” “moral” and “wrong” without God. If he doesn’t exist, there’s no reason why people shouldn’t be able to treat others how they want (lie, cheat, steal, kill), because there would be no moral consequences for their actions.

By: Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro « Theology Geek NZ

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:58:26 +0000

[...] POSTS: Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and [...]

By: Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus « Theology Geek NZ

Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus « Theology Geek NZ — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:39:12 +0000

[...] POSTS: Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian [...]

By: Theology Geek NZ » Blog Archive » Recyling: Rawls on Religion and Public Life

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:01:49 +0000

[...] common theme appeared in the comments section of my Investigate Magazine article, Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others? Commenters suggested I had not addressed the standard liberal conception of the role of religion [...]

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:51:00 +0000

Hi Matt, I pretty much agree with your post – as you’ve framed this issue – Where I see you coming unstuck is with your claim that: “If the principles expounded are correct and accurately reflect justice then there is nothing wrong with imposing them onto others”.
So who’s to decide which principles are correct and accurate?
You with your moral beliefs, or me with mine?
I’ve expressed my views that morality is subjective on your site before, so to answer my own question, there is no objectively correct answer to moral questions, society decides.