• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

You do not have the right to believe anything you want

Snafu in the Void

Moderator: NMI Bukowski Jr.
Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
31,935

It would be absurd to go outside while it is raining and think "I do not believe it is currently raining". This applies a lot to American politics.

Edit: this is simply a philosophical idea and not an attack on anyone. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.
 
Last edited:
Actually you do have the right to believe anything you want. Why? Because no one can stop you. If someone accuses you of stealing from them, but can't provide any evidence, you won't be found guilty in court and you might be able to sue them for libel and they could potentially go to jail for making a false police report but that person, even while sitting behind bars could still believe deep down that you did it.

Now of course that doesn't mean people are required to entertain others' delusions. For example, if a man believes he is a woman I don't believe people should be forced to play along. However, he still has the right to believe it.
 
Actually you do have the right to believe anything you want. Why? Because no one can stop you.
If I believe my neighbor deserves to die I could walk over and kill him. Nobody could stop me.

Doesn't give me the right to do it, nor the right to even believe that.

We all have a responsibility towards truth as humans. The universe does not lie. Humans do.
 
If I believe my neighbor deserves to die I could walk over and kill him. Nobody could stop me.

Doesn't give me the right to do it, nor the right to even believe that.

We all have a responsibility towards truth as humans. The universe does not lie. Humans do.

Murder is illegal. Of course you don't have the right to walk over and kill your neighbor. However, if you want to stay in your house and think about how evil your neighbor is and how he deserves to die while you make dinner, you certainly have the right to do that.
 
Murder is illegal. Of course you don't have the right to walk over and kill your neighbor. However, if you want to stay in your house and think about how evil your neighbor is and how he deserves to die while you make dinner, you certainly have the right to do that.
Let's go back to the rain example, it's raining outside. You choose to believe it's not. You are betraying the universe, your creator, spreading obvious lies, and your neighbor who is deathly allergic to rain walks outside and dies after you told her it wasn't raining.

That woman died because you spread an obvious lie. Is that not murder??? At the very least manslaughter.

Obviously stretching the example here, but trying to state my opinion.
 
Somebody needs 2 to survive. However you choose to believe 1+1=3. You know it equals 2 but you choose to believe it's 3. This person then dies because you tell them it equals 3.

Is that not murder? Do you truly have a right to do that?
 
Humans have an innate responsibility towards truth and the greater good. Thats why God created us.

Criminally insane people truly believe what they are doing is OK, that they are God.

We lock them away for life for their beliefs.

We do not have a right to betray truth for our beliefs.

But ultimately this is just a greater philosophical idea and we're getting off course by talking about the legality of things
 
I wonder if you are too easily collapsing the concepts of thought vs action into each other. And also not really distinguishing between rights and responsibilities or moral and ethical obligations.

What do you mean by rights exactly? From whence do they come? Are you talking about civil rights conferred and gauranteed by the state or natural rights that we somehow possess as humans by virtue of our place in the universe or the world?

That said, the idea that Man has a sacrosanct and inviolate “self” that could posess rights in the first place is one a lot of contemporary philosophers would disagree with. They’d argue that rights begin at the social or community or even ecosystem level not the individual level.
 
Let's go back to the rain example, it's raining outside. You choose to believe it's not. You are betraying the universe, your creator, spreading obvious lies, and your neighbor who is deathly allergic to rain walks outside and dies after you told her it wasn't raining.

That woman died because you spread an obvious lie. Is that not murder??? At the very least manslaughter.

Obviously stretching the example here, but trying to state my opinion.

You're still making the same error in your reasoning, just with a dumber example. Providing false information that leads to someone's death is potentially a crime. I never said you have the right to commit crimes.

If you want to sit in the house while it is raining and believe it's not raining you have the right do it, although I have to question how exactly one convinces themselves of this because I think whatever % people would be able to actually do this is so small that it's not even worth discussing so I reject this example based on how unrealistic it is.
 
Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer.

Such judgments can imply that believing is a voluntary act. But beliefs are often more like states of mind or attitudes than decisive actions. Some beliefs, such as personal values, are not deliberately chosen; they are ‘inherited’ from parents and ‘acquired’ from peers, acquired inadvertently, inculcated by institutions and authorities, or assumed from hearsay. For this reason, I think, it is not always the coming-to-hold-this-belief that is problematic; it is rather the sustaining of such beliefs, the refusal to disbelieve or discard them that can be voluntary and ethically wrong.

If the content of a belief is judged morally wrong, it is also thought to be false. The belief that one race is less than fully human is not only a morally repugnant, racist tenet; it is also thought to be a false claim – though not by the believer. The falsity of a belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a belief to be morally wrong; neither is the ugliness of the content sufficient for a belief to be morally wrong. Alas, there are indeed morally repugnant truths, but it is not the believing that makes them so. Their moral ugliness is embedded in the world, not in one’s belief about the world.

‘Who are you to tell me what to believe?’ replies the zealot. It is a misguided challenge: it implies that certifying one’s beliefs is a matter of someone’s authority. It ignores the role of reality. Believing has what philosophers call a ‘mind-to-world direction of fit’. Our beliefs are intended to reflect the real world – and it is on this point that beliefs can go haywire. There are irresponsible beliefs; more precisely, there are beliefs that are acquired and retained in an irresponsible way. One might disregard evidence; accept gossip, rumour, or testimony from dubious sources; ignore incoherence with one’s other beliefs; embrace wishful thinking; or display a predilection for conspiracy theories.
 
Humans have an innate responsibility towards truth and the greater good. Thats why God created us.

Criminally insane people truly believe what they are doing is OK, that they are God.

We lock them away for life for their beliefs.

We do not have a right to betray truth for our beliefs.

But ultimately this is just a greater philosophical idea and we're getting off course by talking about the legality of things

Again, we do not lock them away for their beliefs. We lock them away for their actions. I know someone who has a ton of insane beliefs and delusions. He is a free man. Why? because he has not killed or seriously harmed anyone.
 
To believe is to take as true. To live a lie purposely is to betray the universe.

@burn out I'm expanding my opinion on the reading which I posted above...
 
Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer.

Such judgments can imply that believing is a voluntary act. But beliefs are often more like states of mind or attitudes than decisive actions. Some beliefs, such as personal values, are not deliberately chosen; they are ‘inherited’ from parents and ‘acquired’ from peers, acquired inadvertently, inculcated by institutions and authorities, or assumed from hearsay. For this reason, I think, it is not always the coming-to-hold-this-belief that is problematic; it is rather the sustaining of such beliefs, the refusal to disbelieve or discard them that can be voluntary and ethically wrong.

If the content of a belief is judged morally wrong, it is also thought to be false. The belief that one race is less than fully human is not only a morally repugnant, racist tenet; it is also thought to be a false claim – though not by the believer. The falsity of a belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a belief to be morally wrong; neither is the ugliness of the content sufficient for a belief to be morally wrong. Alas, there are indeed morally repugnant truths, but it is not the believing that makes them so. Their moral ugliness is embedded in the world, not in one’s belief about the world.

‘Who are you to tell me what to believe?’ replies the zealot. It is a misguided challenge: it implies that certifying one’s beliefs is a matter of someone’s authority. It ignores the role of reality. Believing has what philosophers call a ‘mind-to-world direction of fit’. Our beliefs are intended to reflect the real world – and it is on this point that beliefs can go haywire. There are irresponsible beliefs; more precisely, there are beliefs that are acquired and retained in an irresponsible way. One might disregard evidence; accept gossip, rumour, or testimony from dubious sources; ignore incoherence with one’s other beliefs; embrace wishful thinking; or display a predilection for conspiracy theories.
Ok. Now I understand where you are arguing from.
 
We all have a responsibility towards truth as humans. The universe does not lie. Humans do.
While I think you should strive to stick to the truth, I unfortunately don't see how society would function without lies. It's so ingrained in us. Most human communication is still gossip like it was when we stopped grunting and began making complex sounds to know the status of the tribe and it's members.
We've built a civilisation on lies and it would collapse without them. Just look at how we raise kids. We delude them with stories about the tooth-fairy and unicorns because telling them the truth about what constitutes life would petrify them. Or how we talk to ourselves - without that carapace of self-deceit we'd go mad, I think.

I don't believe in rights you just have, you earn them by being a decent person and not an asshole to others. So yes, I think you can have any beliefs you want, but uttering or speaking on some of them might end up with you getting your ass whopped or put in a straitjacket. 🤷‍♂️

And as for false or dangerous beliefs, I think they serve a necessary function though the price is steep. But immoral? 😄
 
To believe is to take as true. To live a lie purposely is to betray the universe.

@burn out I'm expanding my opinion on the reading which I posted above...

Do we not have the right to betray the universe? Mind you, I am not recommending anyone do that or saying there won't be consequences but it does seem to me that we are given the right to do it, at least to an extent.

I think the raining example is really stupid because 99.9% of people would not be able to convince themselves it wasn't raining if it was. However, people are able to delude themselves in myriads of other ways.
 
Do we not have the right to betray the universe? Mind you, I am not recommending anyone do that or saying there won't be consequences but it does seem to me that we are given the right to do it, at least to an extent.

I think the raining example is really stupid because 99.9% of people would not be able to convince themselves it wasn't raining if it was. However, people are able to delude themselves in myriads of other ways.
I think you should read the article man. My points here aren't very accurate towards the articles argument. I'm not explaining it well.

Yes it would be idiotic for anyone to say it's not raining, but it's simply a concept being used as an abstract example to argue the idea.
 
I think you should read the article man. My points here aren't very accurate towards the articles argument. I'm not explaining it well.

Yes it would be idiotic for anyone to say it's not raining, but it's simply a concept being used as an abstract example.

I read the article before I made my first post in this thread. My disagreements are with your statements, not with the article.
 
I read the article before I made my first post in this thread. My disagreements are with your statements, not with the article.
Well I just said I wasn't explaining properly.

What do you think about the article?
 
I can’t connect beliefs with rights. I would agree certain beliefs are just wrong, should be discouraged as they are dangerous, toxic, unhealthy.

And often from a sinister self serving corrupting origin.

But beliefs cannot be helped, or policed IMO. Law cannot really have a place wrt belief itself.

Action is where right comes in. I can believe my neighbour should be chopped up, he smokes Skunk so I’d pounce when he’s couched out lol.

I can’t be denied the right in a lawful or even theoretical sense, from holding a belief.

I can admit to a belief. As long as it doesn’t lead to any impactful action or harmful consequence, I have a right that nobody can take away from me.

To try and install that belief in others, rights can be drawn into it.

Because I believe something, it doesn’t give me the right to dictate, or act upon it in any way I personally see fit.

But actions are commonly motivated by beliefs, and not all are wrong, or harmful, often vital for the common good.

Just my thoughts in this moment.
 
Top