Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

[public hermit]

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

 

[timothyu]

The only advantage in denying impartial and thorough investigation, goes to the powerful whose only means of power is to control the narrative. You will be told what is true and must accept it. Most people willingly comply.

 

[public hermit]

The only advantage in denying impartial and thorough investigation, goes to the powerful whose only means of power is to control the narrative. You will be told what is true and must accept it. Most people willingly comply.

That makes sense. Putting the powerful to the side for a moment. Let's pretend we're genuinely interested in the truth or at least well founded beliefs. When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

 

[timothyu]

When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

Apart from when one can seemingly go no further based on discerned evidence, I would have to say when the majority turns against you and the sheep cry wolf.

 

[public hermit]

Apart from when one can seemingly go no further based on discerned evidence, I would have to say when the majority turns against you and the sheep cry wolf.

Haha, okay. Is it morally wrong to stop short of pursuing all the discernable evidence?

 

[Niels]

That makes sense. Putting the powerful to the side for a moment. Let's pretend we're genuinely interested in the truth or at least well founded beliefs. When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

The answer rests on the shoulders of the individual. What one considers a thorough investigation may be insufficient for another.

Whether there are moral implications, and to what extent, depends on a combination of the individual and their specific circumstances.

 

[public hermit]

The answer rests on the shoulders of the individual. What one considers a thorough investigation may be insufficient for another.

Yeah, it's kind of murky. My intuition is that we tend to stop an investigation once we're satisfied with the answer we find. And that satisfaction may be for epistemic reasons or not. Maybe I stop investigating because it seems I've looked at all the available evidence, or I stop because I found an answer I like, or maybe I'm not satisfied but stop because I have other things to do, etc.

Whether there are moral implications, and to what extent, depends on a combination of the individual and their specific circumstances.

I think that's right. It doesn't seem that beliefs, per se, are morally culpable states. I say that partly because I don't think we can, willy-nilly, choose to believe just anything. We tend to believe what strikes us as true. But I'm still not sure about that. If I believe something because I would rather not believe it's false, then isn't that a form of self-deception? Don't I have an obligation to the truth?

 

[timothyu]

Haha, okay. Is it morally wrong to stop short of pursuing all the discernable evidence?

Yes and no. It depends on one's capabilities and of course whether or not it is worth pursuing if nothing will change, the deck being stacked against us as history shows. The world is a lie.

 

[public hermit]

It depends on one's capabilities

That's a helpful observation. Not everyone can pursue all avenues of an investigation. Perhaps it's due to capabilities or resources or time or the importance, etc.

 

[timothyu]

Perhaps it's due to capabilities or resources or time or the importance, etc.

Which is why people get lazy and leave it to so called 'authourities', the very people who benefit by controlling the narrative.

 

[public hermit]

Which is why people get lazy and leave it to so called 'authourities', the very people who benefit by controlling the narrative.

Yes, that surely happens, but if I'm looking into something and have limited understanding or time or resources, it make's sense that I would seek the insight of those who have understanding, time, resources, etc. Not all authorities are alike (and certainly not all of them are "authorities").

If I take an anti-authority stance, then that makes me the authority by default, and that can't be accurate.

 

[timothyu]

it make's sense that I would seek the insight of those who have understanding, time, resources, etc.

Which just starts another search for truth in who is worthy

 

[public hermit]

Which just starts another search for truth in who is worthy

Sure, but that's not always an impossible task. Who do I consult regarding my interested in learning about medieval husbandry? The best bet is someone who has had the time and resources to study medieval husbandry in detail.

 

[timothyu]

The best bet is someone who has had the time and resources to study medieval husbandry in detail.

It still all boils down to a matter of personal choice. Look at the number of scholars that have spent 40-50 years on Jesus and the New Testament yet still do not agree.

 

[Fervent]

What we believe shapes what we believe to be moral, and what we believe to be trustworthy. But Truth doesn't need to be sought, it's tautological. It's when we stop trying to find it on our own that we are able to accept it for what it is. Which is where those who don't believe become culpable, since their supposed efforts sto find what is true is in fact attempts to deny the undeniable.

 

[jacks]

Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

No I don't believe it is wrong. We all believe/not-believe in many things and we do so without perfect knowledge. I don't think it is possible to wait for "certainty" either in our beliefs or dis-beliefs. "Certainty" is for those who lack imagination. At least that's what I believe.

 

[Bradskii]

The only advantage in denying impartial and thorough investigation, goes to the powerful whose only means of power is to control the narrative. You will be told what is true and must accept it. Most people willingly comply.

But that doesn't apply to you I'd guess.

 

[Bradskii]

What is the relation between belief and moral culpability? Is it wrong to believe/not-believe certain things?

Is it wrong to believe X if a more thorough investigation would show that X is false? In other words, do we have a moral obligation to do as thorough an investigation as possible before accepting the truth/falsity of X? If so, how would we know when our investigation is sufficiently thorough?

I assume the answer may differ depending on the belief in question. Beliefs that lead to right/wrong actions will clearly have a moral component. But what about beliefs regarding evolution or that the earth is flat/spherical?

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? I'm not sure that we do. Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Please avoid theological subjects such as whether one is morally culpable for belief/non-belief in God since such subjects are not allowed in this forum. I know that's a big ask, but I believe we can do it! Maybe I'm wrong in so believing, i.e., such a belief is false, but is it morally wrong for me to so believe?

An immoral act is one that causes harm. If a belief is prompting you to cause harm then you'd better be sure that you are right. Exactly how much time and effort you put into making sure will vary from situation to situation.

 

[timothyu]

But that doesn't apply to you I'd guess.

I question everything and trust nothing mankind holds dear considering our world is built upon the principle of take over give UNLESS there is advantage to be gained by giving

 

[RDKirk]

That makes sense. Putting the powerful to the side for a moment. Let's pretend we're genuinely interested in the truth or at least well founded beliefs. When does one know if they've made a thorough investigation?

Haha, okay. Is it morally wrong to stop short of pursuing all the discernable evidence?

Yeah, it's kind of murky. My intuition is that we tend to stop an investigation once we're satisfied with the answer we find. And that satisfaction may be for epistemic reasons or not. Maybe I stop investigating because it seems I've looked at all the available evidence, or I stop because I found an answer I like, or maybe I'm not satisfied but stop because I have other things to do, etc.



I think that's right. It doesn't seem that beliefs, per se, are morally culpable states. I say that partly because I don't think we can, willy-nilly, choose to believe just anything. We tend to believe what strikes us as true. But I'm still not sure about that. If I believe something because I would rather not believe it's false, then isn't that a form of self-deception? Don't I have an obligation to the truth?

I've mentioned some of this before.

When I was active duty as an intelligence analyst, my job was to determine the strength, cabilities, and if possible, intentions of the enemy and present that information to my operators as they planned their missions.

One of my early commanders had cautioned me, "Tell me what you know and tell me what you think. But be sure to tell me the difference."

That's a profound epistemological question with no easy answer. In my real world, it meant that I collated as much information as I could, but I always held off coming to conclusions until the moment I had to begin preparing the actual briefing (my "information cut-off minute").

Why did I forestall conclusions? Because early conclusions tended to be unnecessarily premature "information cut-off minutes." Once a conclusion was reached, the tendency was to ignore later information, particularly information that didn't coincide with those conclusions.

That was a rule as well: "Never fall in love with your own hypotheses."

After giving the briefing, intelligence collection began again and later new conclusions as well. That brought up another caution from the same commander: "It's okay to be mistaken but never be wrong. Mistaken is when you tell me, wrong is when you don't."

I would add that "wrong" is also when you cease to collect information to come to better conclusions.

So, even now I keep beliefs relatively fluid, freeze them when necessary to make decisions and take action, then let them go fluid again.