When does a belief become evil?

[partinobodycular]

It seems as if the world has become very divided lately. Conservatives versus liberals. Anti-immigration versus open borders. Anti-vaxxers versus vaccine advocates. Black lives matter versus blue lives matter.

Now it's true that such differences are normal, and have always existed, but it seems as if lately the hostility between opposing positions has become more and more acrimonious, and that people reach that state of acrimony much more quickly. To the point that some in each camp believe that the opposition isn't just wrong, but that their beliefs, or their intentions are actually evil.

Thus the question, when does a belief rise to the level of being evil?

And secondly, are there any beliefs that you think rise to that level?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think hatred and violence are aspects of that threshold.

 

[timothyu]

What is evil is the motives behind encouraging divisiveness. Someone above the fray is benefiting.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think hatred and violence are aspects of that threshold.

But technically speaking, that would be the hatred and violence that are evil, and not the belief itself. Yet it seems as though some people regard certain beliefs as being evil in and of themselves. As if the belief itself harbors a harmful intent. For example, they may believe that something such as "critical race theory" is evil in and of itself, and that they must therefore be treated as such, regardless of the intent of its proponents.

Thus hatred and violence become warranted in lieu of that inherent evil.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

None of those examples on either side are evil until they choose to take up methods that are.

 

[honey badger]

when its kept over a day ...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But technically speaking, that would be the hatred and violence that are evil, and not the belief itself. Yet it seems as though some people regard certain beliefs as being evil in and of themselves. As if the belief itself harbors a harmful intent. For example, they may believe that something such as "critical race theory" is evil in and of itself, and that they must therefore be treated as such, regardless of the intent of its proponents.

Thus hatred and violence become warranted in lieu of that inherent evil.

I see, so something like belief in racial superiority?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lucifer believed himself equal to God.

 

[TedT]

Thus the question, when does a belief rise to the level of being evil?

Any belief that is not in accord with GOD's being loving, righteous and just is evil.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yet it seems as though some people regard certain beliefs as being evil in and of themselves.

I don't think beliefs can be evil. They can be wrong and lead to damaging results. But like natural catastrophes they are without personality and thus morally neutral.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think beliefs can be evil. They can be wrong and lead to damaging results. But like natural catastrophes they are without personality and thus morally neutral.

So you wouldn't say that a belief in "Pro-Choice" is inherently evil?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So you wouldn't say that a belief in "Pro-Choice" is inherently evil?

I would say it is wrong and it can lead to evil action.

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think beliefs can be evil. They can be wrong and lead to damaging results. But like natural catastrophes they are without personality and thus morally neutral.

But don't beliefs have consequences? And isn't the root cause of those consequences the belief itself?

And if beliefs can't be intrinsically evil, then reason would suggest that they can't be intrinsically righteous either. So the belief in the saving grace of God isn't intrinsically righteous.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I would say it is wrong and it can lead to evil action.

"To avoid confusion, it is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw. The suffering of a toothache is evil in the broad sense as is a white lie. Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils."
The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So in the broader sense beliefs can be evil, especially when they lead to moral evil in the narrower sense.

 

[timothyu]

Beliefs are not born of themselves but from the minds of man. So the source can be good or evil, depending on the definition of the day needed to justify the outcome that man hopes for.

 

[partinobodycular]

So in the broader sense beliefs can be evil, especially when they lead to moral evil in the narrower sense.

But that becomes a very treacherous path to navigate, because often the defense of a righteous belief looks exactly the same as the defense of an evil one.

So unless one chooses to hold that we can always tell the difference, either the defense of one's beliefs is always righteous, or it's always evil.

That may seem like a rather un-intuitive conclusion, yet how is it wrong?

 

[Occams Barber]

It seems as if the world has become very divided lately. Conservatives versus liberals. Anti-immigration versus open borders. Anti-vaxxers versus vaccine advocates. Black lives matter versus blue lives matter.

Now it's true that such differences are normal, and have always existed, but it seems as if lately the hostility between opposing positions has become more and more acrimonious, and that people reach that state of acrimony much more quickly. To the point that some in each camp believe that the opposition isn't just wrong, but that their beliefs, or their intentions are actually evil.

Thus the question, when does a belief rise to the level of being evil?

And secondly, are there any beliefs that you think rise to that level?

I've noticed an increasing tendency in CF for an opposing point of view to be described as a 'lie'. I also see opponents often described as 'liars'. This is a shift from attacking the argument to attacking the opponent. There also seems to be increasing confusion between opinion and fact.

It's possible to hold an opposing point of view in good faith even when that point of view can be shown to be demonstrably wrong.

OB

 

[RDKirk]

"To avoid confusion, it is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw. The suffering of a toothache is evil in the broad sense as is a white lie. Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils."
The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So in the broader sense beliefs can be evil, especially when they lead to moral evil in the narrower sense.

A toothache is most likely the result of negligence of the moral agent.

 

[RDKirk]

I've noticed an increasing tendency in CF for an opposing point of view to be described as a 'lie'. I also see opponents often described as 'liars'. This is a shift from attacking the argument to attacking the opponent. There also seems to be increasing confusion between opinion and fact.

It's possible to hold an opposing point of view in good faith even when that point of view can be shown to be demonstrably wrong.

OB

There is an issue, though, of epistemology. It has become much harder to show a point of view to be "demonstrably wrong" when the validity of every demonstration is denied in its face. When, then, is "good faith" called into question?

 

[Occams Barber]

There is an issue, though, of epistemology. It has become much harder to show a point of view to be "demonstrably wrong" when the validity of every demonstration is denied in its face. When, then, is "good faith" called into question?

I agree that rabid denialism is an increasing problem. In fact it seems to be the denialists who are more likely to accuse an opposition of outright lying.

OB