Morality

[Mr.Badham]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

[Goat]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

It is morally correct to force a kid to brush their teeth every night, and get into that habit.

It is morally correct to teach a kid to show/bath on a regular basis.

[99percentatheism]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

The Stop Sign.

[Polyatheist]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

Force people who are against vaccines to get vaccines because they are having a huge detrimental impact on society. Public schools will not let you attend if you are not up to date with your shots.

[Thatguy]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

Prisons.

There are any number of things we require of someone in order to share burdens in (or near) a society.

[Bust Nak]

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

In general terms: It's ok to force someone, to stop forcing someone else to do what they don't want to do.

[Mr.Badham]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

Prisons.

There are any number of things we require of someone in order to share burdens in (or near) a society.

My question would be, "Is it moral to lock them up, or is it lust whats best for society?"

[Polyatheist]

My question would be, "Is it moral to lock them up, or is it lust whats best for society?"

Would it be moral to lock up a rapist or let them continue raping people? That one answers itself.

[Choir Loft]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

I submit that you are entirely and completely wrong. A man CAN and MUST be forced to behave in ways they do not wish. In point of fact, it's done all the time. To suggest that it isn't done or that it shouldn't be done is to live in a fairy tale world of unreality.

There is no such thing as autonomous freedom.

Morality is - and of a right ought to be - based upon something higher and greater than the individual.

For a thing to be 'moral' at all is for it to be based upon something with more teeth in it than simple consent. Otherwise society devolves into extreme lawlessness. You'll have people with guns running around killing innocent young people on their way home with a bag of candy in their hand.

Moral restraint upon men is essential for an orderly and prosperous society. Lose it and you lose all the benefits that men enjoy from working and living together.

Even more, moral restraint is essential among nations. As men require restraint from society, so nations require restraint. Without it you have constant war, oppression and exploitation of millions without consideration for their humanity, pollution of the environment on a global scale and the ultimate risk of planetary extinction of the human race.

National and international restraint can only come from a power and source greater than the nations. It can only come from God.

History records that civilizations rise and fall dependent upon standards and precepts higher than the needs of the individual or the community. Therein lies the secret of peace and prosperity; cooperation. Without it, nations and societies inevitably collapse from their own animalistic passions for autonomy.

There is no such thing as ultimate freedom. Under such conditions there is no such thing as voluntary consent to morality. Under such conditions morality comes out of the end of a gun and the only one who is morally justified is the one who is still breathing.

Is this really the way you want to live? Is this really the way you want society to go? Consider reality and consider it well.

because it's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Thatguy]

Morality is based entirely on consent.

I propose that;
You cannot morally force someone to do something they don't want to do.

If I'm wrong, you will give an example of something you can force someone to do that they don't want to do.

Prisons.

There are any number of things we require of someone in order to share burdens in (or near) a society.

My question would be, "Is it moral to lock them up, or is it lust whats best for society?"

When we judge an act or omission to be "moral" we've weighed all of the pros and cons and determined that, in our opinion, overall the conduct is better than it is worse. An act in an of itself isn't moral or immoral. You have to look at the particular situation and consider all of the competing values that apply and, if you feel that the good outweighs the bad, it's a moral act.

For instance, is it immoral to cut a person's throat? Depends on the circumstances. If I do it to a stranger in a bar because he stepped on my toe, that's an immoral act. If I'm a surgeon performing neck surgery it's moral. In both cases I'm causing harm, but in the latter case the benefits outweigh the harms so it's a moral act. Of course, further factual complications might change my judgment in either case.

Is it immoral to imprison someone? Depends on all the circumstances. It is harmful in that it uses force to restrain a person's autonomy. But if the good I am doing in protecting society, specific potential victims, and even the person himself outweighs the harm, then it's moral. That something is moral doesn't mean it does no harm, just that on balance it is more beneficial than not.

In weighing the competing moral values, you lean heavily libertarian in saying that the only, or primary, concern should be the right to do as one wills. I'm more utilitarian and concerned with avoiding harm to people and promoting wellbeing. So, for instance, in a situation where a snake oil salesman is selling a concoction as a cure for cancer, you might say that it would be immoral to interfere with their freedom to pursue their goals and it would be immoral to interfere with the consent of the patient to buy the medicine of their choice. Regulating this transaction would, therefore, be an immoral act. I'd consider the opportunity of individuals to determine their own medical care, but would find that outweighed by the competing values of preventing fraud and protecting public health.
I don't think that either moral evaluation is the objectively true one, I just don't consider the libertarian approach to be better for society or for individuals.