The Imposition of Belief

[Al Farabi]

When is it okay to impose one's beliefs upon someone else? It was obviously okay for us to say "your beliefs are wrong" in the case of, for example, Nazi Germany (right?), but when is it not?

[DrM]

Always humans strive for truth, and yet we have yet to find it. There will always be differing ideals. The problem is that truth normally resides in shades of gray. Regardless, there are some exceptions, packets of truth can be gleaned from life sometimes, they are called "facts". Other nuggets of truth can be found when watching "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. Still more snippets of truth can be found in the conscience, these are called "ethics". Still, the multitude of people on this planet guarantees that there will be someone who will disagree with these "facts" and "ethics". Is it alright to challenge these beliefs? Even though they can be proven wrong with "facts" and "ethics", every human is entitled to their own opinion.
It is o k to change a persons belief and ideals when their beliefs harm themselves or others. Even if this harm is delivered indirectly. Take Gravity for example, were a person to believe that it didn't exist, and tried to jump off a cliff. It is perfectly logical and ethically correct to restrain them. Or like in Nazi Germany, their beliefs hurt others (the jews) and therefore it was imperative we corrected them.
This rule also applies to a greater macrocosm. One person who fails to contribute to society is indirectly harming the society, and therefore all its subsequent members. Therefore, it is prudent to make sure that the average member of society has the correct standards to contribute to the society as a whole. This is normally done in public facilities called "schools". If the school is not sufficient, then additional schooling is required, so that the young member of society can reach the point of high production on his own. Although, were a person to refuse to cooperate with the schooling, then one would have to force the young person to cooperate with and contribute to society (today that is done in correctional facilities called "prisons".

[Tsar Phalanxia]

Nazis aren't going to stop being Nazis if you say "You're WRONG". You have to deal with the causes of Nazism and the underlying roots of support for them. However, I believe in freedom of speech and thought, EXCEPT when those ideas present a threat to freedom of speech and thought, e.g. Nazism.

[winwun]

It is permissable to impose your beliefs on others when you have the power, however gained, to facilitate the imposition.

[Perna de Pau]

When is it okay to impose one's beliefs upon someone else? It was obviously okay for us to say "your beliefs are wrong" in the case of, for example, Nazi Germany (right?), but when is it not?

The short answer to your question is "never".

I cannot think of a situation where it would be OK to impose one's beliefs upon someone else.

The fact of saying to someone "your beliefs are wrong" does not mean imposing our belief (that those are wrong).

Everybody should be able to believe what they believe and express it and everybody should be able to criticise someone else's beliefs.

[Yiuel]

I will have to agree with Perna's short answer here : "never", even for the worst ideologies out there, no matter how inhuman they are.

Now, I can sure impose it locally. On myself, and on people agreeing with me. I can make sure I want to protect my way of trying to follow my path within the Universe, and the path I share with those people with whom I have agreed. But this is self-imposition, far away of imposing on someone else what I believe is right. But this is as far as I will go.

[Will.]

When is it okay to impose one's beliefs upon someone else? It was obviously okay for us to say "your beliefs are wrong" in the case of, for example, Nazi Germany (right?), but when is it not?

personally, even in the case of Nazi Germany, especially Nazi Germany, that it is never ok, to impose your beliefs on another. Its a matter of ethics, they have to want to believe you, or over a longstanding period of time, become adjusted to the idea of change, or agree at a social standpoint. Clause with no legitimacy is useless.

[Will.]

It is permissable to impose your beliefs on others when you have the power, however gained, to facilitate the imposition.

I don't believe thats the moral right, just power of imposition with no resistance.

[Al Farabi]

Alright the general feeling here is 'never,' I think, which leads to the question: is it therefore morally wrong to legally regulate anything? In essence, what is law but the enforcement of a particular set of beliefs?"

[sudikics]

The short answer to your question is "never".

I cannot think of a situation where it would be OK to impose one's beliefs upon someone else.

The fact of saying to someone "your beliefs are wrong" does not mean imposing our belief (that those are wrong).

Everybody should be able to believe what they believe and express it and everybody should be able to criticize someone else's beliefs.
This.

Question at Al Farabi: what constitutes imposing beliefs on others? I agree with Perna that telling someone that they're wrong is not imposing your beliefs on them, but how can you ever force someone to think a certain way (ignore 1984 for a moment)?

[Al Farabi]

This.

Question at Al Farabi: what constitutes imposing beliefs on others? I agree with Perna that telling someone that they're wrong is not imposing your beliefs on them, but how can you ever force someone to think a certain way (ignore 1984 for a moment)?

To impose your beliefs is to force or attempt to force people to act as if your beliefs are correct regardless of what they think. To impose is not to convince; an imposition deals only with outward appearance.

[Googler]

Alright the general feeling here is 'never,' I think, which leads to the question: is it therefore morally wrong to legally regulate anything? In essence, what is law but the enforcement of a particular set of beliefs?"

Seeing as morals are beliefs after all, I would agree that it is morally wrong to regulate anything. However, I do feel that it is at times ok to regulate things. For instance, it is ok for the United States to have laws that regulate behavior. In all reality, if you do not agree with the beliefs of the US, you can leave. I will concede that some laws are needed to keep order, I'm not an anarchist after all :icon_razz:

[Al Farabi]

Seeing as morals are beliefs after all, I would agree that it is morally wrong to regulate anything. However, I do feel that it is at times ok to regulate things. For instance, it is ok for the United States to have laws that regulate behavior. In all reality, if you do not agree with the beliefs of the US, you can leave. I will concede that some laws are needed to keep order, I'm not an anarchist after all :icon_razz:

So the imposition of belief is okay if it will keep order? How do we know which laws help keep order and which just opress people?

[rmw]

So the imposition of belief is okay if it will keep order? How do we know which laws help keep order and which just opress people?

I suppose it's a matter of protecting people from physical harm (i.e. theft, rape, murder) vs. "moral" harm, of which opinions differ (i.e. abortion, gay marriage).

[Yiuel]

In all reality, if you do not agree with the beliefs of the US, you can leave.

I will have to strongly disagree with you here. Immigration is a pain in the ass, and let us not talk about independentist movements.

[Googler]

I will have to strongly disagree with you here. Immigration is a pain in the ass, and let us not talk about independentist movements.

I agree, independentist movements are ultimately impossible in my opinion. However, if you didn't like a countries policies enough, I could see anyone being willing in immigrate.

[Googler]

So the imposition of belief is okay if it will keep order? How do we know which laws help keep order and which just opress people?

Knowing which laws keep order and which oppress is a tricky thing. In all reality, that ends up being up to the majority of people in the society. Or in the case of a dictatorship, who holds the power. I may not agree with how the dominant beliefs are chosen, but I don't have a better idea of how to choose them :(

[Yiuel]

I agree, independentist movements are ultimately impossible in my opinion. However, if you didn't like a countries policies enough, I could see anyone being willing in immigrate.

Have you ever tried to immigrate?
Do you know how complicated it is, and that it is not only related to some individual's will?

I have listed in another thread all the difficulties to immigrate. Hellish. Even for countries supposedly open as Canada and the US.

So my disagreement stays.

[Dr Goofy Mofo]

When is it okay to share one's beliefs with someone else? It was obviously okay for us to say "your beliefs are wrong" in the case of, for example, Nazi Germany (right?), but when is it not?

Always!

[djura]

Although the general opinion is quite liberal here, I'd have to disagree. I believe that extremely liberal society isn't possible anywhere, simply because of the fact that people are morons in essence.I'm not going to go into sociological study about why this is the way it is, but we have more than enough proof that this is the truth.
Now, it may be liberal and democratic to state that freedom of speech is the ultimate human right, no matter how incredibly stupid the words might be, but please consider for a sec that words have a meaning, and this meaning consequently results in actions. These actions create problems for most people, and salving these problems ultimately push society into totalitarianism. So, I ask you - wouldn't it be easier just to prevent idiotic behavior by simple censure. As rigid as this sounds, I believe that a set of rules must be followed in every society, in order to keep the citizens from killing one another. So, by this standard, it is sometimes necessary to impose collectively embraced opinions on those who's actions undermine the principals of society, such as nazis, religious fundamentalists etc.
Whether or not these principals are wrong in essence (such as they ware in nazi Germany) is a different questions altogether.

[sam the moderately wize]

I would consider indoctrination and any attempt to convince others of your beliefs by something other than rational argument to be ethically dubious.

As for opressive laws, I think governments should follow JS Mill's utilitarianism...

[Perna de Pau]

Regulation is not equivalent to imposing beliefs.

If the competent authorities believe that driving in town over a certain speed will result on an inacceptable number of accidents they can regulate by imposing a speed limit: this does not mean that they are impose their belief.

[Sister Faith]

So the imposition of belief is okay if it will keep order? How do we know which laws help keep order and which just opress people?

The imposition of laws based on fact ie speeding causes accidents, is okay if it will keep order. Laws based on beliefs ie no commerce on the Lord's Day (Sunday), are oppressive, imho.

[Tsar Phalanxia]

What if the authorities twist/ignore the facts?

[rzm61]

What if the authorities twist/ignore the facts?

You act like they don't do it all the time already.

[Al Farabi]

The imposition of laws based on fact ie speeding causes accidents, is okay if it will keep order. Laws based on beliefs ie no commerce on the Lord's Day (Sunday), are oppressive, imho.

Funny you should bring that up, because there has been some research into it lately and it turns out that removing speed limits has little (http://www.motorists.org/blog/national-speed-limit-effect-on-traffic-safety-fuel-prices/) to no (http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/safety-setting-speed-limits/#CONCLUSION) effect on fatalities (http://www.motorists.org/pressreleases/home/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/).

What if the authorities twist/ignore the facts?

Which is especially a problem if it's impossible not to because there is no objective morality.

All law and all morality opress freedom. That is their purpose: to opress; to hold down the minority so that the majority can live the way they want to.

[tagnostic]

All law and all morality opress freedom. That is their purpose: to opress; to hold down the minority so that the majority can live the way they want to.

an interesting point,
I would restate it that
No One can have complete Freedom without infringing on anothers.
Therefore Society is an attempt to distibute freedom and its concurrent
restrictions equitably,
That is the theory, but then you get the law of diminishing returns, any time a group or individual gains rights/freedoms it invariably restricts someone elses until the petty restrictions clog up and remove the freedoms they were intended to protect, instead of Freedom for all it becomes Restrictions for all.

tag

[Aaryk]

I largely have to disagree with much of this. I may just not be as cynical as everyone else, but absolute personal freedom, defined as the ability to do anything one wishes without restricting someone else's freedom or physically harming someone, would really work without a problem. Human nature is to fight oppression, so if you place laws, people will break them; if you make stricter laws, people will fight them more furiously. But if you leave people to their own, people tend to manage themselves accordingly.

A large part of the problem with heavy laws is that people can get away with mischief more easily, I'll explain. Normally, if I saw someone doing something wrong, I would not get involved as I would be afraid of being suspect as an accomplice of some sort--I just assume someone will handle it (an SEP field, if you will). However, if there were no law around it, I wouldn't be afraid of being implicated and I would know that no one else would stop the person committing the "crime," so I'd likely say something to the person performing the disagreeable action.

Society will naturally regulate itself in this way. We do the minimum amount required, so if you let us know someone else can handle it, we'll let them, but if we know no one else will, we snatch up the opportunity to help.

I hope. I can't hate humanity anymore.

[woody23]

I agree with Aaryk to a point. Mostly that I can't hate humanity any longer. I have such high hopes.

I think imposing your beliefs on anyone at any point for any reason is wrong. I don't see our fight against Nazi Germany as an imposition of our beliefs on them (even though it may have ended up that way after the war) but more as a defense of the right to hold ours.

I realize the implication that telling someone they can't kill me is imposing my belief that I have a right to live on them, but really you can argue nearly any point that far down. So this discussion could go on forever.