On Moral Superiority

[Godular]

So, this line of discussion came up in the abortion thread, and rather than allow a tangential line of discussion to continue, I thought I would transfer the gist of the discussion here. If you want to avoid the TL;DR stuff, the major questions are restated at the bottom.

A few threads back, in a discussion about religion and morality, I posted a comment which I considered to be a joke at first:

I know which morality is superior! The one that doesn't try to claim it is morally superior!

Better luck next time, everybody ever!

I stopped to think about this comment, and my ongoing participation in the abortion thread as well as most any discussion in which religious views are presented as equivalent to scientific consensus despite evidence against such an impression of parity (Creationism, Circumcision, etc). It struck me as rather logically sound in retrospect, and since has guided my outlook in a variety of different issues.

Revised, it is as such:

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others.

Now, a discussion broke out in which the position was put forth that some moralities (and by extension cultures) are worse than others. My declaration was that so long as one's views remain focused only on themselves and those who choose to follow the same path, then there is no such thing as 'inferior' or 'superior' cultures or moralities. And the riposte was in regards to Shariah Law and Southern Christian Fundamentalism and how they force things upon others who do not share the same viewpoint. The use of 'In God We Trust' would be another example.

I claim that these counterexamples do not counter my position, indeed it is reinforced by the position that if one attempts to force their morality on others who hold different views, then it is that person's own morality that is degraded in so doing. In claiming moral superiority, they no longer possess it. They have fallen from equal stature.

Now, there are several situations in which I have questions about this notion.

1. What about those who are born and raised to a certain morality?

I do not know about anyone else on these boards, but it strikes me as almost criminal that many children are raised and essentially told that a certain morality holds sway because 'that is just how it is'. In regards to religion, it is my position that such would have been long ago discarded if children were raised in a manner that encouraged critical thinking and the capacity towards introspection that would enable one to decide what is right or not based on what they have learned and what they might consider fair treatment.

Sunday school, Religious Youth Camps, such things serve only to indoctrinate children at their most impressionable and vulnerable (I would mention Madrasas as an example outside of Christianity, but the Western impression of such things are rather tainted by common misconception. Madrasa rather literally means 'school', and can be a perfectly secular institution), and in my view also constitutes a form of coercion for children by using a position of authority to press one morality on those under such purview.

Is this right to anyone?

Can anything be done about it? SHOULD anything be done about it?

The next situation I ask about is an extension of the first, and a result of one comment that use of force is justified when preventing adherents to one moral framework from victimizing another person within the same framework in a way that outsiders would deem wrong.

2. What of those who are mistreated by one morality, but know no other path?

I think we can agree in almost all cases that Shariah Law treats women in a reprehensible manner. It is not the only one, however, to mistreat one segment of society for reasons that seem justified to that culture but to outsiders would seem completely anathema.

But what would happen if we sought to liberate these maltreated groups from their oppressors? If we were to use force in so doing? These people are taught from early ages that the system they are in is 'The Most Civilized' or some variant thereof, and that all others are hellbound fiends seeking only to tempt them from the path of righteousness. How must it seem to them when somebody traipses up and tells them that all that they hold to be true is wrong, and that they deserve so much better?

How easy would it be to convince a woman raised in this situation to reconsider her position, even in the best of circumstances?

What is aided in using violence to achieve the same end?

In the first situation, I should think my position abundantly clear, but in the latter... I honestly have no idea as to my own position other than 'Education is the answer'... with NO clue about how to implement such a statement. I'm pretty sure gunfire would happen even in the most optimistic of outlooks.

I hope that didn't seem too rambling...

To summarize, I ask y'all the following questions:

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not? (consider specifically the notion of raising a child 'Christian' or 'Muslim', not simply exposing a child to different cultures)

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?

5. Do you consider defending one person from being harmed by another person acting in accordance with their own moral standards (such as using lethal force to protect a third party from harm) to be forcing your own morality on others? Why or why not?

6. Do you believe a secular or nonreligious culture/society to possess morals of its own? Why or why not? Do you believe a secular society to be compatible with other viewpoints?

[Flying Freedom]

First and foremost, everyone should have the choice to pick a "legal" type of morality that suits them best. Second, teaching your kids your morality is indoctrination? That's bull crap and they know it. This type of thinking is leading us to a dark path from which we might not be able to leave.

[Unnamed island state]

1. Morality cannot be neutral.

[Godular]

First and foremost, everyone should have the choice to pick a "legal" type of morality that suits them best. Second, teaching your kids your morality is indoctrination? That's bull crap and they know it. This type of thinking is leading us to a dark path from which we might not be able to leave.

How so? A child can be taught that it is wrong to steal without referring to the ten commandments. The 'golden rule' is not a concept exclusive to Christianity. How would making it so that a child can make his or her own choice in the matter lead us over the proverbial edge into the metaphorical abyss?

1. Morality cannot be neutral.

Don't think I said it was. Neutral in what regard?

[The New Sea Territory]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?

1. Generally, yes.

2. Yes, because any non-coercive values are just differences of opinion or culture, not actually malicious.

3. Presenting children with religion is certainly child abuse. Presenting children with spiritual beliefs by themselves I would still be iffy about.

4. Only if they are actually oppressed. For example, Christians aren't oppressed in the Western world, contrary to rightist rhetoric. They don't need protection. On the other hand, the women are treated like garbage in many African countries (Islamic or Christian). They need protection.

[Bill Cosby Island]

"Morality is relative until I object to something, in which case my morality is objectively superior"
Honestly why are so many people nowadays, especially a lot of social liberals (not all), like this? People claim to be understanding of all cultures and worldviews, but when someone on the other side of their very own country proposes something they don't like they flip their shit. I just don't get it.

[Zoice]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?
No.

Nuance is important here, I don't think that a blanket statement can be applied in either way (One should or one shouldn't force ideas on others). It depends on what you mean by 'force', I'd prefer speech and education as you said, and I would never advocate use of violence unless there was a threat that can only be addressed by forceful means. But, good ideas need to be spread, and we need to speak freely and openly about our ideas and be willing to accept other better ones. Sometimes that's enough, sometimes that isn't.

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?
No. Simply because it does not impose itself upon those that are not already adherents to it, does not mean that it is harmless. It still affects those that believe in it, and human rights are universal. A woman doesn't lose her right to free speech or the right to not be forced into an arranged marriage simply because she happens to be a religious fundamentalist.

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?
It depends on how the situation. I hate the Amish (not the Amish, but the Amish philosophy). I don't mind a moderate lay-believer that doesn't really go to church anymore.

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?
It depends.

I'm not an expert on anything militaristic, so I won't comment on that aspect, because I don't have anything worth saying about it. However, it seems that it becomes more difficult the larger and more entrenched or established the culture is. It's easier to rescue people from a small cult in the backwoods of the US than from a fundamentalist family in Afghanistan. It depends entirely on the situation in particular, it could be justified to use force, the same way that force can be justified in a hostage situation, whether it is possible is a different question, and one I can't answer.

[Christian Democrats]

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others.

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

[Unnamed island state]

1. Morality cannot be neutral.

Don't think I said it was. Neutral in what regard?

How can morality be neutral? Morality has to say that x is good right? Then -x or whatever must be bad. So yeah it has to be morally superior to be a morality.

[Zoice]

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others.

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

This. Believing that you hold a morally superior position and not acting on it is cowardice. Tolerance for intolerance is shameful.

[Unnamed island state]

"Morality is relative until I object to something, in which case my morality is objectively superior"
Honestly why are so many people nowadays, especially a lot of social liberals (not all), like this? People claim to be understanding of all cultures and worldviews, but when someone on the other side of their very own country proposes something they don't like they flip their shit. I just don't get it.

Yea I don't get it either.

[Godular]

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others.

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

Yet in your example the 'liberty' of the adult is specifically harming the child. And in all of your other examples, the same issue is in place, it harms others. Though I will point out that while I find animal sacrifice distasteful, so long as the animal is treated with respect and no undue cruelty... I can't really argue against it.

And again, the Golden Rule is not exclusive to one moral framework. In fact, it is the one that is almost wholly universal. Easy to agree upon its usage, no?

[Godular]

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

This. Believing that you hold a morally superior position and not acting on it is cowardice. Tolerance for intolerance is shameful.

So a person who believes that it the only moral path is to exclude gays from X, Y, or Z is obligated to act upon that position?

[Zoice]

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

Yet in your example the 'liberty' of the adult is specifically harming the child. And in all of your other examples, the same issue is in place, it harms others. Though I will point out that while I find animal sacrifice distasteful, so long as the animal is treated with respect and no undue cruelty... I can't really argue against it.

And again, the Golden Rule is not exclusive to one moral framework. In fact, it is the one that is almost wholly universal. Easy to agree upon its usage, no?

What if the child was of the opinion that the actions were acceptable?

@ Your other post just above this one.

Of course.

[Christian Democrats]

Morality necessarily forces itself on others because morality, first and foremost (though not exclusively), prescribes and proscribes how people behave toward one another. For example, if you believe that adult-child sexual contact is wrong and if you take steps to prevent adult-child sexual contact, you are limiting the (natural) liberty of the adult (and, perhaps, even the child) to act on his desires, thus forcing your morality on him. The same goes for preventing or punishing homicide, slavery, animal sacrifice, etc.

Yet in your example the 'liberty' of the adult is specifically harming the child. And in all of your other examples, the same issue is in place, it harms others. Though I will point out that while I find animal sacrifice distasteful, so long as the animal is treated with respect and no undue cruelty... I can't really argue against it.

Now, you're violating your own rule. To amend it:

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others, unless it is forcing itself on others to prevent them from harming third parties.

Now, you would need to define what constitutes "harm" since you clearly believe it's morally acceptable to use force to stop harm.

[Godular]

Yet in your example the 'liberty' of the adult is specifically harming the child. And in all of your other examples, the same issue is in place, it harms others. Though I will point out that while I find animal sacrifice distasteful, so long as the animal is treated with respect and no undue cruelty... I can't really argue against it.

And again, the Golden Rule is not exclusive to one moral framework. In fact, it is the one that is almost wholly universal. Easy to agree upon its usage, no?

What if the child was of the opinion that the actions were acceptable?

@ Your other post

Of course.

And on what basis would the child have this opinion? Because daddy said so? See situation 1.

As for the second point: This I find unacceptable. And the very heart of my point that the instant it attempts to impose these things on others, it is no longer worthy of the same respect it demands from others.

[Murovanka]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?

It is. Well, there's no such thing as moral superiority, but considering the question yes the one that doesn't claim to be morally superior is morally superior.

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?

As long as it does not infringe upon the rights of women, sexual, religious or ethnic minorities there is no problem. As long as it is compatible with the "my freedom ends where yours begins"-statement.

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?

It is indoctrination at its worst. Taking myself for an example, I went to a primary school where we had religion as a subject and we read the bible and sang songs and all that. The teacher said it was all true so I believed him; as a ten year-old, I hadn't been taught to "think critically" and so believed in the ark and talking snakes and bushes. The problem is that these ancient fictional stories are presented as if they were real and the truth and kids have no way to differentiate. And that typical "good vs evil" dichotomy is horribly narrow-minded and there is absolutely no sense in threatening a kid with hell.

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?

We've tried that in the Middle East and Afghanistan, haven't we, tried to impose our values of secularism, democracy, pluralism- which didn't turn out too well. I think one thing we haven't realized is that forcing our culture on a vastly different one doesn't work. Change needs to come from within. We can support movements and ideas and encourage their spread (moderate, secular Islam for example) but eventually the change needs to be indigenous and supported by those peoples.

Currently we're doing the opposite of that. We're spreading Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism through buying so much oil from Saudi Arabia; we're supporting these fundamentalist countries against moderate Muslims (in Yemen); our policy of ceaseless drone and air strikes are only serving to further alienate the locals and strengthen ISIS' hands. Add to that cooperation and support of various Islamist and extremist factions all over the world in addition to having one of our key allies- Turkey- directly help ISIS shows how truly effed up our efforts in the region are.

What to do? In general, stop spreading Islamic fundamentalism in every damn way possible and promote a moderate, secular Islam compatible with the diverse world we live in now. Of course, this is not taking geopolitics and special interests into account (oil and oil pipelines) so a solution is... impossible.

[Wallenburg]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?

I cannot imagine any moral position that doesn't try to force itself on others in some way. What do you mean by "force"? Social stigma? Legal repercussions? Attempts to persuade others in favor of a certain moral code?

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?

No. Moral relativity has some basis, but there are other factors in judging cultures, and we have no responsibility to consider all cultures equal.

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?

"Presenting"? If you are referencing indoctrination methods, yes. If you are referencing education on what religion is and which religions exist, no. Children should be free to decide what they believe in without society forcing them to accept certain labels and develop religious loyalties without understanding exactly what they entail.

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?

Yes. Diplomatic and peaceful efforts can only go so far. For instance, fascism had no intention of coexisting with other ideologies. It had to be destroyed through force.

[Blorbs]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?: If your going for the most superior morality, then generally yes. Many moralities are better and worse than eachother, but if your morals are compatible with other morals, it would be morally superior.

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?: No, not at all. For instance, look at the US. They don't force their views on others, however their views to most middle eastern countries and views are vastly more disliked and irrationally hated compared to all other views

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?: Certainly. Telling an extremely impressalbe child (Which is ALL children, for at least the first few years) that would beleive that a fairy steals their lost teeth for some inexplicable reason and gives them money in return that, without a doubt, religion X is true, and instead of how the kid will usually hear from their parents that the fairy was made up, they usually dont even get the notion that other religions (Or lackthereof) could also be true, and even when they do because they dont say it with certainty they have a very, very high chance to keep with how they were raised. However, when told that as an adult when never introduced they will be much more reluctant to instantly take it as 100% true forever and always or else anger.
A fantastic representation of this from the oatmeal:

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?: It is possible, and to some extent productive, and could probably be improved apon but I dont have a better way at the moment.

EDIT: Who are these 60% of people who think that what their culture and viewpoint are superior to everything else, implying that rational people will choose that viewpoint or they are possibly less rational?

[Godular]

Yet in your example the 'liberty' of the adult is specifically harming the child. And in all of your other examples, the same issue is in place, it harms others. Though I will point out that while I find animal sacrifice distasteful, so long as the animal is treated with respect and no undue cruelty... I can't really argue against it.

Now, you're violating your own rule. To amend it:

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others, unless it is forcing itself on others to prevent them from harming third parties.

Now, you would need to define what constitutes "harm" since you clearly believe it's morally acceptable to use force to stop harm.

I don't recall speaking at all about using force to stop harm to others.

Let us take a quick detour towards another subject similar in scope to that which you presented: Incest. In particular, I consider the concept biologically problematic and ethically questionable, but if both parties are consenting adults, who am I to judge? Note the use of 'consenting adult.'

The idea of informed consent is a very important one, we do not consider children to be capable of giving consent until they reach a certain age. Other nations might have different views about when this age might be, or even what might constitute consent. Do we consider any one definition greater than another? Why?

[Zoice]

What if the child was of the opinion that the actions were acceptable?

@ Your other post

Of course.

And on what basis would the child have this opinion? Because daddy said so? See situation 1.

As for the second point: This I find unacceptable. And the very heart of my point that the instant it attempts to impose these things on others, it is no longer worthy of the same respect it demands from others.

1) What about if the child wasn't indoctrinated into that, but still honestly believed that the abuse should continue?

2) If I honestly believed that a certain action (for example, having sex with someone of the same gender) would lead to eternal torture.. Of course I would act on that! I would do absolutely anything I could to stop people and try to save their soul.

[Godular]

1. Do you agree with the statement 'The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others'? Why or why not?: If your going for the most superior morality, then generally yes. Many moralities are better and worse than eachother, but if your morals are compatible with other morals, it would be morally superior.

2. Do you agree that so long as a culture or viewpoint does not seek to impose its views on others that it should be considered equal to other views? Why or why not?: No, not at all. For instance, look at the US. They don't force their views on others, however their views to most middle eastern countries and views are vastly more disliked and irrationally hated compared to all other views

3. Do you consider presenting religion to children a kind of coercion? Why or why not?: Certainly. Telling an extremely impressalbe child (Which is ALL children, for at least the first few years) that would beleive that a fairy steals their lost teeth for some inexplicable reason and gives them money in return that, without a doubt, religion X is true, and instead of how the kid will usually hear from their parents that the fairy was made up, they usually dont even get the notion that other religions (Or lackthereof) could also be true, and even when they do because they dont say it with certainty they have a very, very high chance to keep with how they were raised. However, when told that as an adult when never introduced they will be much more reluctant to instantly take it as 100% true forever and always or else anger.
A fantastic representation of this from the oatmeal:

(Image)

4. Do you think it is possible or productive to use force to protect groups that 'we' might consider oppressed within a certain culture? Why or why not? Can you think of a better way?: It is possible, and to some extent productive, and could probably be improved apon but I dont have a better way at the moment.

EDIT: Who are these 60% of people who think that what their culture and viewpoint are superior to everything else, implying that rational people will choose that viewpoint or they are possibly less rational?

Ah, the Oatmeal... I need to read that more. Is it still updating?

[Godular]

And on what basis would the child have this opinion? Because daddy said so? See situation 1.

As for the second point: This I find unacceptable. And the very heart of my point that the instant it attempts to impose these things on others, it is no longer worthy of the same respect it demands from others.

1) What about if the child wasn't indoctrinated into that, but still honestly believed that the abuse should continue?

I would rather extremely want to know why, and whether the child fully understands the ramifications of the activity. See above comment about informed consent.

2) If I honestly believed that a certain action (for example, having sex with someone of the same gender) would lead to eternal torture.. Of course I would act on that! I would do absolutely anything I could to stop people and try to save their soul.

And again, this does not preclude my position. The instant one tries to force their view on others, with force or any other coercion, they are no longer morally superior. In fact, for my position, I'd pretty much expect those the individual acts against to employ force to resist any such attempts at coercion. They would be justified in this.

[Christian Democrats]

Now, you're violating your own rule. To amend it:

The only morally superior position is that which does not try to force itself on others, unless it is forcing itself on others to prevent them from harming third parties.

Now, you would need to define what constitutes "harm" since you clearly believe it's morally acceptable to use force to stop harm.

I don't recall speaking at all about using force to stop harm to others.

Simple Question: Do you believe it is right or wrong to employ force to stop individuals from harming others?

If it is right, then you are violating your own principle (don't force your morality on others).

If it is wrong, then you are a radical sort of moral anarchist, who countenances murder, rape, slavery, etc.

[Godular]

I don't recall speaking at all about using force to stop harm to others.

Simple Question: Do you believe it is right or wrong to employ force to stop individuals from harming others?

If it is right, then you are violating your own principle (don't force your morality on others).

If it is wrong, then you are a radical sort of moral anarchist, who countenances murder, rape, slavery, etc.

I note that you excluded the notion of informed consent. We have essentially agreed upon what constitutes informed consent in this country. Children cannot sign off on contracts, and other forms of consent are not considered legally acceptable because a child is not capable of understanding the ramifications of the activity in question. This is an agreed-upon thing for us.

In this case, were a father to attempt to copulate with his own progeny in public, I would be surprised if no-one acted to prevent the activity, as I would be among them. Would I use force? If need be.

And I disagree that preventing one from harming another is forcing my morality on them. I consider all persons to be equivalent so long as they do not harm others, and so would act against such efforts to harm others to my best ability. Were it a Muslim attacking a Christian, a Jew attacking a Muslim, or any other combination.