Ellis & terrytnewzealand: Yes, in reality we tend to take the pragmatic approach; we try to ensure that business is conducted the way we see fit, and that others cooperate with our own view of what's ethically right and wrong, but only to a limited extent. With regard to behaviour that we see as 'wrong', we generally ignore the trivia as being unworthy of our intervention, giving ourselves a pat on the back for being fair, tolerant, and broadminded. On more serious matters, we are often prepared to take action, and sometimes drastic action.

The reason I posed the question -

"You're deep in the Brazilian jungle and you encounter a small, previously unknown aboriginal tribe. They are peaceful and well-disposed to you but, in accordance with their religion, they are about to sacrifice a young girl to their god of fertility. Do you attempt to impose your own beliefs upon them in an effort to prevent the sacrifice?"

- was to try to illicit a response in relation to Revlgking's comment:

"It is wrong for anyone with strong beliefs and opinions to impose them, dogmatically, on others"

The members of the tribe have very strong religious beliefs. They believe that their very existence depends on human sacrifice. They do not believe that it's wrong. For them, not only is it right, but their god demands it.

Along you come with the power to impose, with impunity, your own very strong beliefs, i.e. "Thou shalt not kill", or something to that effect.

How does Revlgking's comment stand up to the situation?

Why am I asking the question? Because, I think given ever increasing opposition to our beliefs/convictions, the point in time comes at which we confront that opposition - given the power to do so; at what point that occurs depends on personality, strength of convictions, emotional involvement etc.