Is belief/non-belief a morally culpable state?

[Bradskii]

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

We're not talking about whatever 'mankind holds dear'. It's a general question about the amount of time we need to spend checking if something is true or not. Even when the outcome could be dire if you were wrong.

For example, I guess you don't spend any time at all checking a pilot's credentials when you fly. I guess you don't slow down to a crawl when driving through a green light because you trust that the drivers crossing your path will obey their red light. And when your surgeon introduces your anaesthetist just before they start a procedure to remove your appendix then you'll trust that they both know what they are doing.

You know I'm right. So you can trust me as well...

 

[timothyu]

Always am cautious especially 'And when your surgeon introduces your anaesthetist just before they start a procedure to remove your appendix then you'll trust that they both know what they are doing.' I have trouble waking up l

Consider the truth about JFK .. still ongoing. Truth takes time.

 

[NBB]

but, if God exists, i mean i know he does because he has done much in my life, but
If God exists, and there are eternal consequences for what you believe, God decides what is moral, because he is creator and judge.
If you end up, being judged by God, then what he says is good and wrong, is the only morality worth of value.

 

[Bradskii]

but, if God exists, i mean i know he does because he has done much in my life, but
If God exists, and there are eternal consequences for what you believe, God decides what is moral, because he is creator and judge.
If you end up, being judged by God, then what he says is good and wrong, is the only morality worth of value.

But there's a decision that you have to make. If you think that God tells you to do something that you believe is immoral then you have to decide if it is really God that has told you. You are responsible for that decision.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Proverbs 18:13 says: He that answers a matter before he hears it; it is a folly and a shame unto him.

Now granted that doesn't say anything about the process of investigation; but it does say that to not investigate is folly and shame. So if you take proverbs as part of truth revealed from God; then there is some form of moral duty to investigate.

Posts in this thread mentioned authorities and narratives. Some of what's been conveyed as true; has been gathered and repeated, weighed in disciplines such as statistical probability. How likely is A to have outcome B no matter how many times the experiment is run? Well that gives us a range of where certain truth can be found. And the tighter the statistical grouping; assuming the closer to "real truth" one is.

And this ties into answering things like surgery and airplanes; a lot of that "statistical leg work" has already been done (and many times by trial and error). And so long as accredited institutions don't lose the public trust; we don't think to question the pilot or the surgeon. Seeing how by the amount of data has been collected. We assume the accreditation of the pilot or the surgeon is an adequate representing of their skill. And things like this is why we need faithful institutions to keep society running. Because when trust breaks down, society is never far behind it!

So yes, there comes a point where belief and unbelief bear morally culpable consequences!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

I don't know, PH. It all depends on how good our spelunking gear is. Some of us can afford the gear; and some of us can't.

 

[public hermit]

I don't know, PH. It all depends on how good our spelunking gear is. Some of us can afford the gear; and some of us can't.

Haha, well, you've got the gear to go deep. What do you think?

As I've mentioned, I'm not sure that beliefs, per se, are morally culpable states. All things being equal, we tend to believe what seems true to us. But it does seem we have a moral obligation to seek truth (so many moral situations depend on it). So it does seem we have a moral obligation to pursue truth to the best of our ability. Does that sound accurate? I'm not sure. Maybe specific examples would help. I'm trying to think of one that is fairly benign so the thread won't descend into the usual back and forth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Haha, well, you've got the gear to go deep. What do you think?

I think .................... our answers to your multiple complex of questions in the OP depend upon which philosophers, or authorities, or other data brokers we each trust to inform us as to what the proper epistemic orientation to living in Reality needs to be.

Obviously, some of us don't have all of the answers to such questions, even if we might have what seems to be the "best spelunking equipment."

But seriously, though, these questions of yours take us deep into various zones of Philosophy, intertwined with each other as they all too easily become and I won't pretend any of this can be answered easily, if at all completely. For the moment, rather than attempting an all out counter to an inquiry akin to that of W.K. Clifford, I'd address it with a number of other epistemological and meta-ethical considerations which play into the overall scope of the inquiry and which may qualify the way or the extent to which we expect people to "feel obligated" about another person's truth claims.

One initial consideration is the recognition of the conceptual and teleological circumstances of the truth claim put forth. Without getting too convoluted here, we might consider more simply how the ancient Greek philosophers differentiated between the terms, Techne and Episteme.

Techne vs. Episteme

Stemming from Greek thought, Techne refers to hands-on skills and craftsmanship, while Episteme denotes theoretical understanding and universal truths, distinguishing two foundational types of knowledge.

thebasics.guide

​

​

Episteme and Techne (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ​

Then, we might reflect on how these two categories of knowledge qualify or limit our moral expectations in each potential case of whether or not there is a moral obligation to commit ourselves to having sufficiency of evidence where there is a 'truth' being inquired about. In other words, we might ask, "Are we building a passenger jet or bridge that needs to be proven safe, or are we theorizing about the nature of the universe and speculating about whether or not this is all there is?"

As I've mentioned, I'm not sure that beliefs, per se, are morally culpable states. All things being equal, we tend to believe what seems true to us. But it does seem we have a moral obligation to seek truth (so many moral situations depend on it). So it does seem we have a moral obligation to pursue truth to the best of our ability. Does that sound accurate? I'm not sure. Maybe specific examples would help.

I think you're definitely right to say it behooves us to pursue truth as much as our ability enables us to.

But if you could provide some specific examples, this might help us all to better grapple with your current intuitions about what you're bringing to our attention in this thread.

 

[public hermit]

I think .................... our answers to your multiple complex of questions in the OP depend upon which philosophers, or authorities, or other data brokers we each trust to inform us as to what the proper epistemic orientation to living in Reality needs to be.

Obviously, some of us don't have all of the answers to such questions, even if we might have what seems to be the "best spelunking equipment."

View attachment 369521

But seriously, though, these questions of yours take us deep into various zones of Philosophy, intertwined with each other as they all too easily become and I won't pretend any of this can be answered easily, if at all completely. For the moment, rather than attempting an all out counter to an inquiry akin to that of W.K. Clifford, I'd address it with a number of other epistemological and meta-ethical considerations which play into the overall scope of the inquiry and which may qualify the way or the extent to which we expect people to "feel obligated" about another person's truth claims.

One initial consideration is the recognition of the conceptual and teleological circumstances of the truth claim put forth. Without getting too convoluted here, we might consider more simply how the ancient Greek philosophers differentiated between the terms, Techne and Episteme.

Techne vs. Episteme

Stemming from Greek thought, Techne refers to hands-on skills and craftsmanship, while Episteme denotes theoretical understanding and universal truths, distinguishing two foundational types of knowledge.

thebasics.guide

​

​

Episteme and Techne (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ​

Then, we might reflect on how these two categories of knowledge qualify or limit our moral expectations in each potential case of whether or not there is a moral obligation to commit ourselves to having sufficiency of evidence where there is a 'truth' being inquired about. In other words, we might ask, "Are we building a passenger jet or bridge that needs to be proven safe, or are we theorizing about the nature of the universe and speculating about whether or not this is all there is?"



I think you're definitely right to say it behooves us to pursue truth as much as our ability enables us to.

But if you could provide some specific examples, this might help us all to better grapple with your current intuitions about what you're bringing to our attention in this thread.

Yeah, I don't want to assume anything as strong as Clifford's “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” But that did remind me that we've explored it before.

Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

In his landmark essay "The Ethics of Belief" William Clifford argued, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Questions to consider: 1. What constitutes sufficient evidence? 2. How does one know when one has...

www.christianforums.com

The episteme/techne distinction is interesting. Is there a skill to knowing when one has made a sufficient inquiry? I agree that the situation will help dictate whether one needs to investigate further. I will give an example from my own experience.

When I was a telephone lineman, we had an old digger truck (used to set poles), and we could carry one pole on a side rack on the passenger's side. It had two tie downs for the pole, one up by the cab and one in the back. The digger boom was operated from the back on the driver's side, right behind the rear bumper. So we are unloading the pole. My buddy was operating the digger boom, and I am untying the pole up front on the passenger's side. He can't see me and starts to put down the outriggers down (the "feet" that keep the truck from tipping over when the boom is up in the air). I was standing right where the front, passenger's side outrigger comes down as I am untying the pole. He puts the outrigger right on the edge of my boot (thank goodness I wasn't wearing steel toe boots). It didn't break anything, I think because it was so hot and the blacktop road was a little soft, but it did squish the meat out the bottom of my big toe. I hollered and he quickly brought the outrigger back up. Should he have done a little more investigation to make sure nothing was under the outriggers? Absolutely he should have.

That's the kind of situation where a full investigation can be done and one can be quite sure when the investigation is complete, i.e., when one sees nothing is under the outriggers. When it comes to highly speculative cases, we have to accept that we just don't know and there are any number of live possibilities. But I do wonder about things like evolution or a flat earth. I don't see any obvious moral implications from believing/not-believing, but I still wonder about our obligation to the truth, not just to what we want to believe, but to whatever a thorough investigation delivers. I don't really like those examples, however, because they are such hot button issues for some on here, so any better example would be welcomed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

False premises can lead to false conclusions. Deeply believed false conclusions could potentially lead one to violence, as we've seen.

That said, I agree it's a tough question on whether it is 'wrong' to believe something false. It probably depends on how culpable you are for this state of affairs.

Turning to a more modern specific concern, I think it's clearly a moral evil to pass along some outrageous meme or news story without doing some vetting of it to determine its reliability. Alas, many people have poorly developed critical thinking skills, so are the malfeasors culpable?

 

[timothyu]

I think it's clearly a moral evil to pass along some outrageous meme or news story without doing some vetting of it to determine its reliability.

You mean like those who vote along party lines rather than the best option for the problems at hand, or choose a car for looks/prestige rather than reliability?

 

[zippy2006]

Do we have a moral obligation to seek the truth? Is it wrong to believe what is false?

Yes.

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?

You seem to be taking a strong anti-doxastic voluntarism position, and on that position the only variable is the thoroughness of one's investigation. That premise and its entailments could be discussed, but the more primary thing is one's willingness to see truth, which is a kind of intellectual virtue.

So I would say that beyond the variable of seeking truth, there is also the variable of seeing truth, although there is some interrelation. We impute fault for false beliefs when someone is not properly seeking truth or when someone is not properly seeing truth. The reason someone can voluntarily neglect their duties to truth has to do with competing motivations or ends.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I’m enjoying the thoughtful considerations in this thread.

In regards to moral obligation to the search for evidence of truth; I’m just going to kind of throw this out there for pondering and others thoughts.

I’ve watched a lot of animal shows/ zoology documentary type stuff and I’ve noticed a type of “moral thread observed through animal interactions” too. Things I’d never known for lack of experience.

For example, wasn’t till about 20 years ago that I moved out of suburbia into rural areas and so, the first time I saw “happy cows” running out of the barns in the spring and jumping around, I thought it was the oddest thing. I never considered cows could be “joyful”. (Well they certainly can!) Which that aspect of cow life, I was happy to learn.

Well after rubbing elbows with a lot more farmers, I stumbled upon a whole bunch more info I never knew about farm animals.

And putting all this information together with the documentaries I’d watched on wildlife; I started to see a string of common threads that apparently runs through all life forms. Even the life of plants offers some fascinating clues to the reality that we all aren’t just a bunch of random atoms smacking into each other. There really is some platform of “moral truth” that governs the cosmos.

So…. Makes me wonder; is it really “moral obligation” to “find truth”; or rather the testimony of life to observe truth; (at least in the more extrapolating context of existential/ philosophical questions)?



A lot of common threads here to general stoicism.

Love the practicality of the stoics!

 

[public hermit]

Turning to a more modern specific concern, I think it's clearly a moral evil to pass along some outrageous meme or news story without doing some vetting of it to determine its reliability. Alas, many people have poorly developed critical thinking skills, so are the malfeasors culpable?

Yes, I think at some point they are. I suppose we all have seen, or it has happened to us, that someone posts some garbage and others point it out. Once it is pointed out, the initial poster admits they didn't realize it was false and apologizes. This happened a good bit early on as we were all realizing that not everything on the internet was trustworthy. But at this point, I think most people recognize that some research and verification is needed. Sadly, I think we have come to a point where people just post what agrees with them without much concern for its veracity. That's a problem, and I do think it entails culpability.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Yes.


You seem to be taking a strong anti-doxastic voluntarism position, and on that position the only variable is the thoroughness of one's investigation. That premise and its entailments could be discussed, but the more primary thing is one's willingness to see truth, which is a kind of intellectual virtue.

So I would say that beyond the variable of seeking truth, there is also the variable of seeing truth, although there is some interrelation. We impute fault for false beliefs when someone is not properly seeking truth or when someone is not properly seeing truth. The reason someone can voluntarily neglect their duties to truth has to do with competing motivations or ends.

Now there’s a “truth bomb” if I’ve ever seen one!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Sadly, I think we have come to a point where people just post what agrees with them without much concern for its veracity. That's a problem, and I do think it entails culpability.

Yeah! To context it in terms Revelation uses; that’s probably entails some form of “the mark of the beast”. Particularly as relates to global politics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I don't want to assume anything as strong as Clifford's “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” But that did remind me that we've explored it before.

Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

In his landmark essay "The Ethics of Belief" William Clifford argued, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Questions to consider: 1. What constitutes sufficient evidence? 2. How does one know when one has...

www.christianforums.com

The episteme/techne distinction is interesting. Is there a skill to knowing when one has made a sufficient inquiry? I agree that the situation will help dictate whether one needs to investigate further. I will give an example from my own experience.

When I was a telephone lineman, we had an old digger truck (used to set poles), and we could carry one pole on a side rack on the passenger's side. It had two tie downs for the pole, one up by the cab and one in the back. The digger boom was operated from the back on the driver's side, right behind the rear bumper. So we are unloading the pole. My buddy was operating the digger boom, and I am untying the pole up front on the passenger's side. He can't see me and starts to put down the outriggers down (the "feet" that keep the truck from tipping over when the boom is up in the air). I was standing right where the front, passenger's side outrigger comes down as I am untying the pole. He puts the outrigger right on the edge of my boot (thank goodness I wasn't wearing steel toe boots). It didn't break anything, I think because it was so hot and the blacktop road was a little soft, but it did squish the meat out the bottom of my big toe. I hollered and he quickly brought the outrigger back up. Should he have done a little more investigation to make sure nothing was under the outriggers? Absolutely he should have.

That's the kind of situation where a full investigation can be done and one can be quite sure when the investigation is complete, i.e., when one sees nothing is under the outriggers. When it comes to highly speculative cases, we have to accept that we just don't know and there are any number of live possibilities. But I do wonder about things like evolution or a flat earth. I don't see any obvious moral implications from believing/not-believing, but I still wonder about our obligation to the truth, not just to what we want to believe, but to whatever a thorough investigation delivers. I don't really like those examples, however, because they are such hot button issues for some on here, so any better example would be welcomed.

My position on the core issue of your OP will center more on what I see as the necessity of the interdisciplinary inclusion of aspects of neuro-science, social psychology and the epistemic problem of 'the Criterion' as one attempts to tease out the reasons that any one individual may be inclined to ignore another person's insistence for moral obligation.

Some of this in turn I then conjoin with an application of Basil Mitchell's analysis of what he called "The Layman's Predicament," which in a sense rolls all of what I've just mentioned above into the more central fact that not each individual has the intelligence or brain formation to be fully cognizant of epistemic responsibilities that he (or she) should otherwise perhaps have. They also don't necessarily have the access to accurate information, maybe for no fault of their own if they're situated within an otherwise cultically inclined social locus of trust.

I know, that last bit seems hard to believe now that we're in a Age of Artificial Intelligence and a broadly available, if not yet universal, access to the internet of things.

But is there a skill to discerning when one has made a 'sufficient inquiry'? On a general level of writing papers for a graduate university paper there is, but that skill is above what most people are either called upon to do in the normal environs of their lives, or it is beyond their affordable acquisition.

Moreover, I have to argue too that making a 'sufficient inquiry' in no way relates to then obtaining 'sufficient evidence' by which to believe some Proposition X.

 

[childeye 2]

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?

I'm assuming moral culpability means caring about how my actions affect others. As for belief/unbelief, your question makes me ponder that it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Here's a question: Does anyone on this entire forum think that what he/she believes is false? Anyone?

 

[childeye 2]

Here's a question: Does anyone on this entire forum think that what he/she believes is false? Anyone?

If I say yes, would you believe me?

Yes, I do think people must question their beliefs on this forum whenever correction is taking place.