You probably believe in curtailing certain personal freedoms for other reasons and you are morally justified to do so. Again, nothing personal.
> You probably believe in curtailing certain personal freedoms for other reasons and you are morally justified to do so. Again, nothing personal.
The key difference is that I don't want to limit personal freedoms for a specific class of people. That's when it does get personal.
That's not "a theory" I have, that's a sincere belief that religious person might have. Had you been born a century earlier, it probably wouldn't have seemed so crazy to you.
> The key difference is that I don't want to limit personal freedoms for a specific class of people.
You probably do, but you'd just arbitrarily define what is and isn't a (protected) class of people, so I'll leave it at that.
Of course the steps from 'insane belief' and 'act perceived as immoral' can involve specific steps of reasoning which seem morally correct within the context of the insane belief. That's not the point, not a good justification for the act, and not something that we as a society should tolerate.
Some kind of incompetence, delusion, or misunderstanding is very often the cause of an immoral act.