Forget about murder for a moment.
In general, do you think it is fine for you to impose your moral value on others?
Why should I forget about/exclude murder? Its a part of a moral standard isnt it? Yes its fine to impose moral values on others that want to live as part of a civilisation (and its important to take stock of the full existence of civilisation, not just blindly dismiss all of that...given what you inherit from it is why you even exist in first place to even have the option to rebel against it).
If certain people are of the opinion that the concept of moral standards should never extend past the individual in an absolute sense (i.e anarchy essentially), they are free to set up their own society proving such first...not try this failing nonsense of promoting ego-centric feelings based neo-standards of their neo-cult...but they are not in-tune enough to see the damage they do, its all about simply getting enough ppl to become like them, just like an ever growing opium den.
There should be laws preventing murders and stuff...because it harms others.
One can argue the harm done in prostitution, drugs, incest and a myriad of other things....not to mention the slippery slope of going about determining what exactly is consensual and what isn't.
A prostitute can tell you she's doing it out of her free will.....when she really isn't (and her pimp basically forced her to say that).....and then there's the case of the ones that got into it (in whatever combination of voluntary, forced, economic forced etc) as children/teens, its the only life they ever knew....is their opinion on it going to be really "free-will"?
To me a good standard has existed in every human society - marriage.....that by and large if properly applied, is the ideal when it comes to human sexual relations (for the greater purpose of both procreation, health and long term psyche/social stability). That should be whats focused on (improving institutionally with the notion of free will and consensus) FIRST....before we debate such concepts outside of marriage.....because of the clear positive externalities of the former, and the clear negative ones of the latter (again both history and intuition should tell you enough on it). If you get the order wrong in the approach (try to set up the sail and rigging before you check the hull is stable), you will capsize the boat altogether.
I mean one wouldn't consensually want to be murdered, would he/she?
I dunno, you tell me....do people ever request others to help them with their suicide? A decent lawyer will get the charge of the "assistant" down to manslaughter (if there is the body of evidence for it) given the intent of the victim....but intuitively there are always going to be a certain section of people that want to off themselves...but need others to help them (there's the whole euthanasia thing popping up now too). Death cults exist too, there are many examples. Should we tolerate all that in the ideal of "consensus"....given how flawed determining consensus can be? What if a kid or baby is brought with the parent into some such cult? Has the free-will been properly established? Just read what happened at Waco....read Jonestown....think of all the other parallels, all the smaller, localised instances of such. You tell me.
There is reason why if even a sliver of reasonable doubt exists in criminal court proceeding....the accused is to be found innocent, not guilty. Why should this not apply to consensus too?....i.e if there is a sliver of coercion....absolute free will does not apply. When applied at macro level (society), the only optimal way (again its how humans work/think over our body of historical evidence) to prevent this is to have the moral standard reflect it by clear preventive-based delineation.
People that want to experiment and tinker with this stuff should prove it (that yes anarchy can sustain and prosper) in a pure, crystallised form outside of the millenia long civilisations they have gotten their food, oxygen, water, nurturing and existence from.....rather than undermine it all from within based on their fickle emotions and short lifetime.
Laws should be there to prevent things that are harmful to others...like stop underage prostitution or forced prostitution
It is not really pragmatic way to do it...given what I just talked about (i.e say evil/vice/negative externality stuff....is ok as long as its all consensual/free will)....given the problems determining that free will in the first place.
It is best to legislate by absolute preventive standards and then adjust the enforcement/penalties...rather than change the legislation itself (and try sort out the resulting cascade on the ground). When you see a fence, its best to stop and realise why its there, argue the pros and cons before you remove it (and even then best to remove just a small section to be certain about the effects on smaller scale)....than just tear it down right away because its a fence...and your feelings are that fences suck!
The closer a civilisation is to the ideals that have propelled it thus far...that it has gained by both seeing its own history and introspecting on it to form a natural intution....the better it will continue to do. The fact most if not all civilisations are rapidly straying away from this process is something every civilisational essence (call it religion, culture what have you) has also discussed in their end of times commentaries. The ego is truly the worst thing infecting mankind now....we live better now and think its due to us being inherently better than those that got us to to this point....and often we feel so comfortable and removed we even insult those forefathers as fools, barbarians, ignorant and whatnot. In there lies the seed of our own doom.
@Desert Fox @Psychic @Skies @Centaur
Their aim is either to spread hindutva culture
That is not correct analysis. Don't label what they are doing with actual Hindu cultural essence. They pick and choose from everywhere, and later will abandon when it suits them too. Actual Hindutva is something else entirely.
