I will agree with you, there are some morals that need to be forced on people, but those are the ones that are the backbones of society. There are certain rules that society couldn't exist without (or at least can rarely exist without), such as killing and stealing. If these were done freely, nobody would want to associate with anybody else, and society would not form.
Except societies that engage in immoral behavior are also stable. Slavery is an easy example. For a more extreme example, the society portrayed in 1984 is (arguably) both extremely stable and extremely immoral. So the pragmatic goal of social stability are not what dictates our moral outlooks.
Some morals are ok to implement on other people. For example, laws to avoid killing people is a good thing to implement on the whole society. But, for example, I am not going to break your house in for drinking on your couch, even though I don't drink myself. Why should I?
This is the entire point. What morals one presses on others is up to the individual. You must decide what morals should be forced on others and what morals shouldn't. Saying it is wrong to force a particular moral standard is an ethical judgement. The desire to not force morality when it is avoidable is the basic principle of the great liberal ideal that founded our nation -- nay, all Western society as we know it. But deciding which morals should be pressed on others is an ethical call. There is no way to escape it, save abandoning all standards of morality, which all in this thread have proven themselves unwilling to do.
Of course, there are some people who honestly don't attempt to force any of their ethical values on others. I think that's stupid. I think everyone should actively attempt to enforce moral standards on everyone else in the entire universe.
No. Taking the neutral position (that it's not wrong, it just is) isn't forcing morals on him.
It's true, denying a positive is not advocating the converse. But yes, I AM attempting to assert my morals and convince others to conform to them. So are the rest of them, provided their goal is to change the minds of homophobes. In fact, a desire to enforce one's ethics on another is not evil, it is the only noble reason for engaging in this debate. The other passable goal, to sharpen one's wit, is good, but not on the level of the pure manifestation of goodness that is forcing one's opinion on another human being. Some argue also to showcase their dominance or intellectual superiority, which is weakness at best.
A savvy reader will note that I have used abrasive language in order to describe trying to change people's minds. This is because I wish it to be clear what I ask you to undertake, and also which thoughts I seek to eliminate. The action I ask is that you attempt to change others' minds based on your moral code, and do not claim it is for any other reason. The thought I seek to eliminate is that it is wrong to hold others to one's own ethical standards.
This brings me to the most central point. Pay attention, and think it over, because this is both complex and bold.
You can stop the hate crimes, but not the ideals. Wanting something is different than forcing them to. I would like a sandwich, I am not forcing anyone to make one. I am personally fine with homophobia and racism, assuming no one is harmed in a hate crime. And why shouldn't I be?
Personally, I am most concerned with the evil thought. That is, my goal is not to stamp out hate crimes, but to stamp out homophobia. Changing the hearts and minds of others to conform to one's values is not evil, as we so often mislabel it. It is, in fact, it is the only good you can ever do. Applying coercive means of behavioral control (laws stopping hate crimes) is nothing more than a prolonged form of suffering visited upon an individual for the thoughts in their heads. But to change a mind, to create good out of evil, should be the ultimate goal of any coercive moral enforcement system (such as law).
Persuasion is the only way to escape the vicious cycle of morality: to not enforce one's morals is to condone evil, but to do so is to repress others, and to use violence and coercion to maintain one's ethical standards.
As I drift both further into materialism and further from material reality, I lean more and more towards the position that evil acts are not the concern of ethics. Rather, true ethics is concerned only with the characters of individuals. An evil deed is meaningless, but an evil heart is intolerable. While I can't quite bring myself to show no concern for the act, I ascribe largely to this philosophy. That is, I do not wish to end torture, I wish to end the
will to torture. Not to end sex discrimination, but sexism. Not prevent hate crimes against homosexuals, but destroy the hate that fuels them. At this point, you should all be eying the reference to 1984 suspiciously. We all should. Moderation is key, for I am describing dangerous forces. The type of thought alteration I am advocating as the highest good is also the surest road to an indescribably evil. But such evil is not unavoidable.
However, executing such a plan would be difficult. Who could carry it out? Who could make such a society? Not me alone: I'd rather see the world burn than betray my principles, and such staunch conservatism should not be the only controlling force. This post just sorta ends with no real conclusion.
