When someone says to you, “You shouldn’t impose your morality on other people,” proceed as follows:
YOU: “So you think it is wrong to impose one’s moral point of view on other people?”
THEM: “Yes.”
YOU: “Then why are you imposing your moral point of view on me?
THEM: “What?”
YOU: “To say it is wrong to impose one’s moral point of view on other people is itself a moral point of view, and you are imposing that moral point of view one me by morally condemning me for morally condemning the actions of other people. You are guilty of doing the very thing you say should not be done.”
The fact of the matter is that we all have a moral point of view, and all of us apply that moral standard to others and judge them accordingly. The question is not whether we have moral standards, or whether we will apply them to other people, but rather whether or not our moral standards are true.
Thinking to Believe 
December 9, 2011 at 8:24 am
“When someone says to you, “You shouldn’t impose your morality on other people,” ”
When I say it, there’s more to the sentence.
You shouldn’t impose your morality on other people when you have no good evidence that the things you call immoral harm anyone.
LikeLike
December 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Not a scientist said:
“You shouldn’t impose your morality on other people when you have no good evidence that the things you call immoral harm anyone.”
Of course the dictum of what is immoral is not whether it hurts someone.
LikeLike
December 9, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“Of course the dictum of what is immoral is not whether it hurts someone.”
Mine is.
LikeLike
December 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm
“Mine is.”
Mine isn’t.
LikeLike
December 11, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Oh, yeah, what about mine?!
LikeLike
December 13, 2011 at 1:33 am
@ NoatAScientist
I always have good evidence – but you probably wouldn’t agree on the evidence 😉
LikeLike
December 13, 2011 at 9:52 am
Regarding morality, I think we need to be careful how we define it.
I don’t agree that we can make a sweeping generalization as was stated by a previous post that something is immoral only if it hurts somebody. I agree that many immoral actions will indeed hurt people but that does not necessarily mean that all immoral actions will hurt people.
How we define morality must be filtered through a proper understanding of the Word of God. While we live in the liberty of Christ and thank God for that, that does not mean we have license to behave immorally.
I believe every immoral act will clearly beak the spirit or intent of God’s Word for righteousness. Notice I did not say the letter of God’s Word. You will find in life that there may be situations or circumstances where you will break the letter to do the right thing.
I find that we need to stay away from the 2 extremes when defining morality. The one extreme will accuse you of being immoral if you cut your hair (if you’re a woman). The other extreme will say it is OK to watch pornography because it isn’t hurting anyone anyways.
So in the end we need major on the major things and minor on the things that have room for personal preference. A lot of churches have a hard time with this, especially Oneness Pentecostals (sorry OP’s).
Naz
LikeLike
December 28, 2011 at 2:46 am
Not A Scientist,
Even when you add your dictum to the end of the sentence, it is still self-refuting. You are still imposing your moral point of view on others, and I would venture to say that you have no evidence that imposing morality on others actually harms them. And if you did have such evidence, then that would be good reason for you not to impose your morality on “morality imposers” since your imposition of your morality on them would cause them harm.
And to Matt’s point, why should we think that what makes something immoral is whether it causes someone harm? What is the objective basis for your moral theory and system? And who is to say what constitutes harm?
Jason
LikeLike
December 28, 2011 at 2:46 am
Naz,
How one defines morality will have a lot to do with their beliefs about God. If one does not think God exists, they are likely to define morality in terms of contracts, practicalities, utility, and the like (all subjective understandings of morality). If one thinks that God does exist, they are more likely to think that morality is objective, and to define morality in terms of the character and commands of God. Of course, how we define morality and what we identify as moral and immoral are two related, but distinct issues. Defining morality is much easier than determining what is right and wrong in some cases.
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2012 at 6:44 am
@NotAScientist –
1. Can you please define harm.
2. Can you please explain why you are imposing your modified relativistic moral view upon us?
LikeLike