# Imposing Morality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imposing-morality/256007 "2004-07-20T15:17:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imposing-morality/256007/41 "2004-07-21T22:53:45Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > The actual proposition being debated is closer to “The state should impose moral rules only when necessary to prevent demonstrable harm to a nonconsenting person”. > > That, at least, is noncontradictory, since the state’s adherence to this rule does not in itself cause harm to nonconsenting persons. (Being annoyed does not count as “harm”.) “ **Moral** rules” as opposed to what? What distinguishes which of the rules are moral ones? How do you define “harm”? How do you decide where the line is drawn between harm and annoyance? Can I spraypaint racial slurs (or Family Circus cartoons, for that matter) on the side of your house, and say I haven’t harmed you, just annoyed you? Can I sit in my car in front of your house at 3:00 am (or even 3:00 pm) with my car stereo playing your least favorite music at full volume? Can I reach out and cop a feel of a woman as I pass by her in the grocery store? That’s not harmful; it’s just annoying. And what about actions which don’t harm any specific individuals but are bad for society in general? What if I pollute the earth in a way that nobody would notice right away but that would mess up the planet for future generations? What if I refuse to pay my taxes—whom am I harming? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imposing-morality/256007/42 "2004-07-24T14:42:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > What’s the difference between these two statements: > > I don’t believe abortion is taking a life > > I belive that abortion does not involve taking a life. What is the difference between these two statements: All of the children present are not wearing hats. Not all of the children present are wearing hats. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imposing-morality/256007/43 "2004-07-24T16:29:11Z")
> [@BytopianDream](#): > > The argument that always scares me as a non-Christian is one that hasn’t been posted yet. Who cares about whether you are gay or want an abortion or whatever, you are going to Hell if you do those and if you are not my religion. > > 1. You will go to Hell if you do not follow my religion. > 2. No sane person wants to go to Hell. > 3. If you do not follow my religion you must be insane. > 4. The State must reform you until you are sane. > 5. Yea Brother! You are not going to Hell like me. > or: > 6. You will be in prison/burned at the stake/whatever until you die/Go to Heaven/Find your Eternal Reward. > > It is all very logical and loving. It’s not about taking away freedoms. We are just trying to get you to Heaven and Sanity. Freedom is my religion. > > Yes, when Christians talk about various stuff that sounds like that, it scares me. Name one prominent modern-day Christian who promotes ideas 4 & 6, or indeed any of them after 1, who has a substantial following in society. Even Fred Phelps doesn’t go that far. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imposing-morality/256007.md?page=2)