I don't think that edge cases like you described happen very often at all.

You're right, you always do have to break others consent. Unlike what it seems that you think, I do not think that all actions need to be evaluated in the context of morality.

You don't want trucks driving by your house, but people driving the trucks don't know that. Furthermore, you have the option of moving to an area in which they won't - and someone driving a truck by your house causes no measurable negative effect on yourself, and is arguably not something you should even have an opinion on (in my opinion).

Meh, this is one of those issues that it's hard to really explain my full views on online without writing something close in length to that of a novel. The consent-based rule for dealing with other people is a generally applicable rule for direct interaction - not for indirect.

(Also, do you actually have to go into quarantine? Or was that just an example? If you do, I'm sure it's for good reason, and I can't think of a valid reason that you would be unwilling to do so. Of course this depends on whether or not you view a purely individualistic mindset as a valid one, or what valid means, another messy question.)

Again, I don't think that there are absolutes in answering questions such as "what is moral". There's too much abstraction over that base concept of consent - and once you go past simple human-to-human interaction, things get very messy.

I also don't think that morality coming "from above" is any more valid than how I view it. There are certainly no moral codes that describe what is moral in every possible situation, and there will always be ambiguities - a lot of this, IMO, has to do with the nature and propagation of human culture, and with how our brains (and personalities) develop - which is a complex web of dependencies and influences, weights, values, and patterns.

The above stuff, in combination with other things, makes me lean towards thinking that morality is an invalid concept - that it doesn't really exist at all. The way that I view what is moral and what is not is based on a viewpoint that views all humans capable of thinking for themselves as equal beings, and the assumption that we should act in such a way that attempts to benefit the majority of humans. The reason that I feel that that is "correct" is something of a tautology, and I am aware of that - and aware that others may come to other conclusions about the ways that it is appropriate for humans to interact.

Can I force someone to recognize something they don't want to? No. Can I go against someones will and make them do something because I think it's "better"? Depending on the situation, yes - particularly in situations involving physical violence.

As an example, I once ran up and brained a neo-nazi with my combat boots. He, and another neo-nazi were beating down a scrawny black kid. I don't feel that that was an inappropriate action, as they were acting in such a way that it was apparent that they didn't give a shit about what the black kid thought about getting in a fight. Was it a moral action, in my view? No, but then again very few actions end up being purely moral in my view.

I'm not concerned with aligning myself with a concept of morality - I simply evaluate my possibilities of action, based on my experiences, and try to choose the course of action that is best for everyones (at least for everyone in my circle of influence) ease of survival. Even that is, admittedly, a gross oversimplification.

I'm very close to thinking that people should stop worrying about morality at all, and start only worrying about the well-being of humanity. For a lot of people, questions of morality end up banning consenting actions between adults - which I think is rather ridiculous.

Anyhow, yeah - it's a messy issue. I don't expect to be able to fully and eloquently express my views on the matter anytime soon, but I'm still young. Who knows. I'm sure my view on the matter will evolve much like my views on everything else as I grow older as well.