How is it moral to proselytize?

Morality is subjective. You think attempting to convert people is immoral, while the people doing it think it’s very moral. You’re both right, or wrong. Objectively, it’s neither. It’s a free expression of ideas.

I note in the OP you have some perception of proselytizing as actually forcing someone to your point of view - which, again, objectively we’re in a grey area, but most major religions would seem to disagree with the idea of forced converts, even if some of their followers engage in such practices. Ethically, it’s deplorable, to try and forcibly change someone’s mind.

But that’s not proselytizing. That’s coercion.

From the perspective of the Christian Missionary, we’ll call him John Q. Baptist - he thinks that all non-Christians are going to burn in Hell for Eternity. Actually, more than that - he believes it as certainly as he believes in the ground under his feet. What does his belief instruct him to do, then? Well, he should make an effort to save these people from that fate. So John witnesses. He goes out into the world, trying to exemplify the Christian dogma, and bring the word of God with him. It’s the only choice he has, under his belief system, if he wants to be a Good person. For him to consider for a second that what he was doing was immoral, would require sudden, severe doubt on his part in his own belief system.

If the person being converted is sure their religion is true, then they won’t be converted, will they?

If you’re referring to forced conversion - backed by the weight of government or some other coersive force - then proselytizing is an act of aggression. Most of the respondants in this thread are talking about “witnessing”, sharing, or discussing; no force involved, an exchange of ideas that may be more compelling. Or not.

There’s nothing wrong with sharing ideas, even with trying to convince somebody that your view of God is the “more true” one. Immorality creeps in when it becomes coersive.

Here’s the thing I think your missing. The point is that these people believe that their opinion “will be proven” in the afterlife. So making he arguement that it’s reasonable and just to try and convince someone that theres a speed trap up there (or that you’re approaching a waterfall) because it’s verifiable, while a religion isn’t, doesn’t hold water. They don’t see things in a view bounded by life and death.

They “know” there’s St. Peter waiting at the gates just as much as you know there’s a 80 ft. waterfall up ahead. In your view, that waterfall will be verified when you’re plummeting over it. In their view, the correctness of their warnings will be verified when you’re cast into the bowels of hell.

Mind you, I think it’s all bullshit and bordering on pure evil, but I’m just clearing up what I see as a logical flaw in the argument, however true or just the points in the OP are.

Speaking directly to the OP, I’m inclined to agree that it’s immoral to “convert” people. But that stops short, I’d say that the greater conceps of religion are the problem. I’ll stop there to avoid overly hijacking the thread though.

My second argument is directly on point to your thesis: that it’s immoral to proselytize. If I believe - incorrectly - that you are in danger, is it immoral to warn you?

Let’s assume we’re both exploring new territory. And we’re camped out for the day by the river that we intend to raft down tomorrow.

Along comes a guy in a hot air balloon. He yells down, “Hey – ahead is white water! It’s a waterfall ahead! Don’t raft!”

Now, what should we do?

The guy clearly has the potential to know – he’s in a balloon, after all. But he could be lying, or he could be misinterpreting what he sees… perhaps the white water is just some easy-to-handle rapids. We may choose to believe him, or choose to disregard his advice.

But is his action moral, or not?

Now – suppose as we’re camped out, along comes a guy on foot. “Hey,” says he, “don’t raft down that river. I was up in a hot air balloon yesterday, and I saw a waterfall ahead!”

Now this guy’s testimony is less compelling. He could be lying, mistaken about what the white water meant, or even confused about whether this river is the same one he saw yesterday. Again, we may choose to believe him, or choose to disregard his advice.

But is his action moral, or not?

Then I guess you disregard his advice.

The question you posed is whether his action was moral.

That’s a big if … this is a big waterfall. We’re talking Niagra, here. I don’t agree your, or indeed ANY, kayak can handle it. I’ve seem the waterfall – handling it in a kayak is certain doom.

Is it immoral to keep trying to convince you?

If that’s the case, they’re not going to convert, now are they?
As to the speedtrap/waterfall issue, it implies a reason behind witnessing/proselytizing that I don’t necessarily agree with, nor do many Christians: that converting you is saving you from Hell.
I don’t believe in Hell, nor, specifically, does my Church (I’m Catholic). Any witnessing I might do (which I do/would do only specifically when asked about my religion in my life) would focus on Christ’s example and how I try to live it, which is the focus of my faith. It is my hope that someone who listens to me will appreciate the good I do, recognize that it is Christ’s influence that prompts such things, want to do similar good, and be inspired to study and accept Christ’s teachings as the cornerstone of his life. The onus is on the listener to WANT to accept these things; it is not my job to sign up new members like we’re a club or something.

There are two ways to look at this attitudde: my preferred way and the argumentative way.

My preferred way is to say that Catholics have a right (and a duty) to explain why it is we’re building these things. Maybe you, after having partaken of Christian charity, will want to give back.

The argumentative way would be to say if you don’t like the message, you don’t have to come be cured in the missionary hospital. If you’re depending on charity, it’s more than a little ungrateful to say, “you’ve done what I wanted, now go away.”
In the end, it comes down to two things: faith and religious duty. Missionaries believe that their religion is real and that they are commanded to share it. If you don’t presuppose the validity of the religion (or understand that, for these missionaries, it is presupposed), you cannot understand the mentality.

(yes, I am perfectly aware of the damage that missionary work has done in colonial California, Southeast Asia, and many other places. This thread, however, is about the morality of the PRACTICE, not its history.)

In reading the rest of the thread, I think there’s a definite line to be drawn between proselytizing and coercing. The latter - “conversion at the point of a sword” is, I agree, immoral.

The mere effort to persuade a listener is not immoral.

I think there’s some grey area to be detailed here. There’s alot (I’d argue the vast majority I’m familiar with here) of coersion going on in proselytizing. Very little forced-coersion, but you see alot of “charities”, 12-step programs, and all kinds of other “for the greater good” activities which are implicit attempts to convert the heathens. Hospitals, self-help groups, and welfare societies all, to varying degrees, coerce the people with no where else to turn to their way of thinking. I think this is pretty sinister myself.

I guess if you’re to accept that simple “witnessing” is not immoral and is their duty, then you’ll also have to accept the KKK’s interest in spreading it’s beliefs as being moral too. So long as neither example encourages violence of course.

It is not absolutely wrong for me to tell religious believers I think they’re wrong. That’s my opinion, just as it’s not wrong for you to tell me your god is right.

But to turn around and say atheism is the only path, and then try to convert you, is wrong. I think so, and am firmly convinced, but I don’t have evidence. I never try to “convert” anyone to atheism. The most I’ve ever done is point out fallacies with specific arguments. As a matter of fact, I rarely take part in religious debates just because of this. Just as you telling me your god is the only path is wrong.

Yes. If he had somehow demonstrated that not being part of that church was better, or more right, which he couldn’t do, this might be an argument. But he forced them to.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I haven’t seen one argument here that convinces me that this is moral. Someone commented I’m going from the assumption that all religions are wrong, well that, or all religions are right. Forget that I’m atheist for the moment. I used to believe that all paths lead to the same place, let’s just go with that.

This is true, though:

I was once approached by a young man in a parking lot who was trying to convert people to hinduism. Even gave me a cool little book just like some of those christians do.

New or different ideas sometimes cause those things. Should we end political and philosophical discussions?

It’s ok because freedom of speech and association are basic human rights. Missionaries are generally considered good people because many of them also help build wells, farm, and generally increase the quality of life for those they’re attempting to convert. I don’t think proselytizing is wrong but I must admit I don’t like people knocking on my door Saturday morning to tell me about the lord.

Marc

I do not find the effort to persuade in and of itself immoral. However, the implicit assumption by the proselytizer that he or she knows more about matters of faith than I do…that is arrogance, and somewhat immoral.

I know more about mathematics than the average Joe off the street, and I have no compunction about sharing that knowledge with others. However, I can in principle lead the listener through the same facts and arguments that I went through to reach the point where I am now. Just as Bricker’s hypothetical campers and ballooners can in principle point out the waterfall to those whom they’re trying to save (perhaps after dragging the raft to shore). And I am also in principle open to having my mind changed about mathematics, in the face of new arguments or evidence, just as the camper or ballooner can in principle be shown that there is no waterfall where none exists.

What all this hilights is that the “effort to persuade”, if undertaken in good faith, is more than just a one-sided presentation of facts. If a proselytizer is willing to lead his listener along the intellectual path that he himself followed, and if a proselytizer is willing to be persuaded at the same time that he is persuading…well then that’s just a dialogue like any other, and more power to him.

But if a proselytizer is simply demanding that his listener accepts the fact like stone tablets brought down from a mountain, then the proselytizer has decided that he is closer to the mind of God than his listener. That is immoral.

Hmmm…I guess not. Of course, as a lifetime kayak enthusiast I am certain I can do the falls easily. Is it a problem if I do not heed your warnings? You aren’t gonna try to block my attempt at doing the falls, right?

What about baptising your neighbor’s children? This issue is discussed in Hey-diddily-ho, Neighbors: Ned Flanders and Neighborly Love, in The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! of Homer

I agree with you that mere efforts to persuade are not immoral.

Unprovable is not the same as false. Or to the extent that the OP is trying to persuade us of the view that it is immoral to proselytize, the OP itself is immoral. You can’t *verify * moral concepts.

It’d be a different story if the persuader knew that he or she was attempting to persuade us of something that was false.

A closer question, one that has become politically controversial is: What about an attempt to persuade based on skewed or unreliable evidence when the persuader has reason to know of the quality of the evidence but the person persuaded does not?

Don’t you believe that there’s a line between freedom of speech and persuasion?

Is there anything wrong with people taking about their beliefs in hopes that people will join their way of thinking? I’d say no, pretty much no matter what the message. I’m sure there’s certain privacy restritcions and conflict of interest situations where it should be curtaild, but I’m for it in principle.

However, I see missionaries as very evil due to the points you continue to elaborate on. Semantically, they aren’t coercing under duress, and aren’t bribing you by threatening to without welfare services (usually). They are however using some very significant methods of persuasion, most often on those who are at their weakest and most desperate, and this I believe is wrong. No matter how true and/or innocous their message is, this practice is fundamentally repulsive. Even if their message were something unrelated to religion, this would be a tactic that is unpleasant. If a political party took this tactic people would burn them at the stake. This practice is not “charity” in my meaning of the word and crosses the line to be something beyond “free speech” or “freedom of religion”. Something decidedly evil.

I just thought I’d take some time and answer the OP in detail, because I’m really bored at work today.

And perhaps the key point here is that’s how you feel, and you’re welcome to feel that way.

Do unforeseen negative consequences render an act, which was committed with good intentions, immoral? I’d disagree. And who’s more responsible for the convertee’s choice to convert - he, or the proselytizer? The decision is his alone. Free will, and all that. Further, who’s in the best position to judge how much familial strife it will cause? The convertee, I would guess. So if the act of conversion is an immoral one, it would seem the blame should lie with the person converted. (assuming no aggressive coercion) So, if we put forth the idea that immoral acts (which cause harm to others) are things that should not be done, should no one be allowed to change religions once they’ve chosen one?

It can be regarded as arrogance - or if one wished to paint it in a positive, rather than negative, bias, one might call it certainty. Still - is a good-intentioned act immoral simply because the actor is arrogant? Envision the tycoon who takes pity on the poor, huddled masses - building homeless shelters with his vast wealth. Again, I say no.

I once heard it posited that religion gets a bad rap on this front because, basically - humans beings squabble with each other constantly, and if they didn’t have religion as a reason, they’d find another. Religion does seem to be at the center of a lot of the world’s disputes - it’s something that people often feel passionate about, and by its nature, it tends to be fairly absolute. (“Us vs. Them”) Still, the fact remains that many of them advocate peaceful relations with their neighbors, rather than wholesale slaughter of unbelieving infidels, so again, these systems of belief have good intentions. Good intentions can cause trouble, but form an important part of my definition of whether or not an action is moral.

Which, again, morality is subjective. I’d like to think I have a fairly generic, nondenominational, acceptable definition of morality, but there’s always room for disagreement.

I’m with Bricker and Psycho in this instance. I don’t understand why it could possibly be moral to not proselytize if you think there are serious negative consequences to those who do not share your religious views. If the target thereof is unhappy with me, so be it – I’d rather save them than have them like me.

–Cliffy

A good movie that addresses the topic of proselytization is Big Kahuna, though there the issue is whether one’s firmly held religious beliefs (including the need to testify and convert) should override the more mundane duties of salesmen to sell industrial lubricant. At one point Kevin Spacey’s character asks: “Did you mention perhaps what line of industrial lubricants Jesus would have endorsed?”

RE: The first line quoted above, the OP wasn’t really clear if she’s asking if discussing religion and forming a convincing argument for or against is moral. If the question is that missionary work and proselytizing using methods of persuasion other than simple discussion is immoral your analogy is errant.

If the context is expanded to include any discussion of religion in which the goal is converson, well then I’d call it being “opinionated”. Not sure if that’s a moral shortcoming or even a character flaw, but your anaolgy holds. One can be opinionated and closed minded to opposing points of view on any topic, be it religion, politics or Fermi’s Paradox. This I’d call bull-headedness to a fault, but probably not immorality. Just what I’d call myopic discussions of religion.

When it crosses past the realm of stubborn dogmatic commentary into out-and-out persuasion by other means it could be argued to be immoral without being hypocritical.

RE: The second quote paragraph, that’s plain ole lying. Plenty immoral in it’s own right.

Two things:
Most of the time when you’re talking about conversions the converter is much more educated than the convertee. In which case the responsibility does lie with the convertor.
Not to mention that, as other people have stated, things people need often come with strings attached. Do you want to go to this hospital, the only hospital in the area? Then you must pray to Sai Baba and be a *bhakt * (devotee).

I’m sorry, “if you think” is not a good enough justification for uprooting lives. Still nothing has convinced me this is in any way a moral activity.

OK, so it’s moral for you to tell them not to go over that waterfall to certain doom. I can accept that opinion, but does it cross the line to becoming immoral if you pull a gun on the pig-headed kayaker when he insists you’re wrong? What if you threaten to throw his lunch and sleeping bag onto the fire if he insists? Sure, you’re saving him, but do the ends justify the means? What if you offer to give him $500 not to go into that water, is that immoral? It is bribary after all.

Total certainty…certainty that includes an unwillingness to be persuaded otherwise…is arrogance. This is more than just a matter of how you paint the terms. It’s entirely possible to have certainty without arrogance: certainty that the evidence you have supports your case, certainty that you can defend your position in an open dialogue.

An interesting analogy. There are many who would argue that the tycoon’s actions are inherently arrogant, because he didn’t just give the poor, huddled masses the opportunity to becomes tycoons on their own but instead decided they needed his help. I wouldn’t be one of them, personally…but I also don’t feel that material actions such as you describe necessarily equate to intellectual actions like proselytizing. Also, it’s not as if the entire act has to be either completely immoral or completely moral…it’s possible to perform a moral act but be immoral in your attitude while you’re doing it.