You'll get no argument from me as the JW and the Mormons are about the only people you can safely let in your house for a cup of tea nowadays and I do understand that they think they have a good intention behind their behaviour. Have had some fun conversations with them myself and have the dubious honour of de-converting one of the accompanying JH acolytes during a session, they stopped knocking after that.
It's also 'fun' to experience the procedures and tactics they use with the Mormons being much craftier and scary, psychologically that is. Definitely have had a trickle of sweat down the back when facing the true believing crone, as back then being a militant agnostic meant I could be wrong and thats a scary thought given the option they give you is hell and eternal damnation.
The JW's also sometimes skip my house, because they know I know their clan history and the problems therein; but sometimes they forget. I've seen Mormons only once where I live. They were pleasant and brief.
Much as we might not like to feel "cornered" by their approach, we can hardly fault their intent if they are concerned for our souls. To do otherwise would be, in their worldview, literally to sit by amiably while you let others literally "go to Hell": or in the case of the JW's, to undergo soul extinction unnecessarily. So sure, they have a moral imperative to evangelize.
Evangelical Christians even have a specific commandment from Jesus Christ that they *must* do it. Assuming then, that to disobey Christ is to disobey God, they would be even worse than the JW's if they did not evangelize: they'd not only be condemning people to eternal separation from God but also showing contempt for God Himself.
Or look at it from the other side: suppose one such group was experiencing great benefit and happiness from their view. Would they be "good people" if they refused to tell anyone else about it? I wonder if hogging the happiness is any better morally than withholding a warning.
Maybe that's an interesting question to ask ourselves: which would be most "immoral": letting people suffer unhappiness, or keeping silent about the access to happiness? I've never asked myself that one before. You?
