Jamie_L

There is a difference between respecting a person and respecting a belief that they hold. I think that is the key.

I do not respect my wife's belief that John Edwards, Van Praagh, Sylvia Brown, etc. are actually psychic. I do however, respect my wife a great deal.

In most cases, it is possible to treat people with respect without having to lie about your own convictions. Only when people are unwilling to have civil conversations or agree to disagree does it become a problem. And then, these people may be crossing the line of deserving respect as a person.

In the case of mental illness, it can be a little more difficult. If you believe someone's thinking is impaired, then how you treat them may become different. Then you have to take into account the treatments involved and specific medical/theraputic goals that may be more important than truth/respect/disrespect, etc.

For instance, if a loved one suffers a brain injury and becomes beligerant towards you, you may give them more respect than you would another person who treats you the same way.

Jamie

jasonpiao

I don't respect the Klu Klux Klan. Their beliefs, that they believe in their hearts to be completely true, cause misery and pain to others even though they think they are doing good. Few would agree that we should respect them for believing these things.
Christianity has caused far more misery and pain than the stupid Klu Klux Klan. It has been far more violent and hateful. They believe in the bottom of their hearts that they are right and that they are doing the world a favour.

There are just a lot more of them and their voice is loud and widespread, having government and economic support.
Is there ANY reason why I should respect them more than the Klu Klux Klan?

Ab_Normal

Wow. You are a better spouse than I. Were my husband to have similar views, I'd have a very hard time keeping my mouth shut. (I suspect I just wouldn't be able to watch TV with him.)

Splat

Sorry Siren Speak. You seem to be itchin' for an argument, but I'm really not looking for moral absolutes, nor am I concerned with anybody's beliefs that don't have any impact on me.

What do you think are the moral dimensions of a situation where you are expected to respect and tolerate beliefs that hold you in contempt and that interfere in your life in some way?

(Thanks Jamie_L and jasonpiao; I agree).

Arrowman

Well, to cut a long story short, I'll start by saying that Splat's 7 December 1:49pm post above pretty much says it for me.

I disagree. People are entitled to their beliefs, but they are not entitled to hold those beliefs immune from ridicule.

I don't seek out people with silly beliefs in order to ridicule them (OK, I lie - sometimes I visit the psychic stands at fairs just to get a rise out of them ), and I choose not to disrupt social / family / work occasions and relationships by "picking a fight"; but these are largely practical considerations, more than moral. When the time is appropriate, I will not use "respect their beliefs" as a reason not to query what I consider to be loony beliefs.

I think that as a society we are too tolerant of loony beliefs, and in particular, we give "special treatment" to Christian beliefs. By this I mean (for example):

1. If I am fronted at a party, say, with a New Age woo-woo psychic crystal user, and I critically question or challenge their beliefs, without being overtly rude, a lot of people will say I am being "rude" or "disrespectful" (where they would never say that if I queried, for example, an overt racist or a Holocaust denier).

2. If I am fronted with a Christian who wishes to push their beliefs into the conversation, and I start to challenge those beliefs, a lot of people will find that "rude", "inappropriate" or "offensive" when they would not have a problem with almost any other discussion. Even for people who are not particularly Christian, Christian beliefs have some sort of special immunity from public critique in our society.

As for the question of "respecting the person" which has come up later in the thread - I suppose this depends on two things: (1) how important you think the belief is, and (2) how much that belief defines the person. Jamie_L's post above is a good example. Jamie clearly sees that one or two silly beliefs do not define his wife, and possibly he does not see belief in psychics as being particularly important on the greater scale of things. I, on the other hand, could not stomach being married to a person who believed such things. That's just a difference between us; there are probably things in a spouse which I could tolerate and Jamie could not.

(Side note: When I was doing the online dating thing, I had a short correspondence with a woman who as it turned out, believes in all sorts of New Age woo-woo and thinks she's psychic. When I found that out, I politely terminated the correspondence, pointing out that we were never going to go far in any relationship. She was quite surprised by this; she thought a little disagreement like that was not terminal. I told her "No, you don't understand - we would be fighting all the time about that stuff." I think it's a bit ordinary, frankly, that tolerance for loony beliefs is so prevalent that a New Age psychic would find in surprising that a man might find that a relationship showstopper.)

(PS a few weeks later she posted a photo on the website. Then I began to regret my decision )

Jamie_L

Well, I don't think it's immoral to state one's opinion of someone else's belief when it is presented to you. However, the MANNER in which this exchange takes place can have moral implications. Being unnecessarily rude or antagonistic about it can be crossing the line. But it's a real gray area.

jasonpio:

I would not respect a KKK member because one must accept certain things I consider immoral in order to hold belief in the KKK agenda.

That is not necessarily true of some who is, say, Christian. One can reject many fanatical aspects of the religion and still consider oneself a believer. This may not be intellectually honest, but just believing in some version of the Christian God does not necessarily entail buying into everything bad that Christianity has ever done.

As for my wife: well, she's a damn fine example of a human being otherwise. She knows I think those guys are frauds, and why, and she's not fanatical about it. We agree to disagree, and she is still a solid friend and good person besides that. Much like most other situations - I judge people more on how they treat other people than on what they believe.

Now, about being forced to deal with views you don't accept: that's rough. Again, maybe it boils down to people treating you a certain way. If someone is delusional, but they treat you well, I could see that it might be possible to be civil with them. Someone who is raving, however, may be hard to deal with. In these cases, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to lie about your own beliefs if that lie helps smooth things out, doesn't put anyone at risk, and if telling the truth may be counter-indicated. I mean, if someone is delusional, your telling them the truth won't change their mind, and I don't think it's a lack of integrity to tell a lie that helps someone as opposed to being honest and causing strife, stress, and perhaps clinical problems.

But I'm just a guy on a message board. I may be talking out of my ass.

Jamie

AtlanticCitySlave

I don't respect anyone's beliefs when I think they are wrong. Not that I sit there screaming "you're wrong" or stuff like that, but you will never find me saying "i respect that" or "we each have our opinion" to someone I think is wrong. If anything, the conversation will just end. The difference for me is that I respect people for being people, so I don't try to hurt anyone's feelings, etc. In other words, there is a difference between respecting someone's beliefs and respecting them as a person (although there are many people I don't respect as a result of their beliefs).

brighid

I think the important distinction has been made: one must respect the RIGHT for someone to believe as they wish (regardless of how ridiculous those beliefs might be) but one does not have to respect the BELIEF itself, nor does holding a belief make one immune from challenge, criticism or even ridicule. I personally feel that many of the more ridiculous beliefs would not be held if they were open for constructive criticism and challenge in such a way that in order to hold that belief one must be able to logically explain, support or defend it. However, I realize that is not going to happen anytime in the near future.

I respect the right for another to formulate and maintain any position he/she wishes for I enjoy the freedom to formulate my own thoughts and opinions. I an open to criticism, challenge and even ridicule because I believe (for the most part) that such things will help me to become a stronger person and refine my thoughts and arguments. I also realize that not everyone is quite as open as I am to such things, but as Arrowman has similarly stated I won’t fail to challenge silly beliefs even though I will be considered rude. Sometimes, no matter how logically, respectfully or thoughtfully you present a dissenting opinion there will be those who find all manner of offensive from any criticism. This is the unfortunate side effect of insecurity.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression: for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach unto himself. -- Thomas Paine

Brighid

Oxymoron

Amie, you are so sweet! I wish I was as magnanamous as you... but I ain't

Everyone has the right to believe whatever they please. When they act on what they believe (or indeed if they elect not to act at some point), then there are consequences. Humans are fundamentally rubbish at working out what the causes of their actions (or inaction) will be. Eg people who smoke believe they won't get cancer (or emphysema, or bronchitis, or...). And that's a thing that has well publicised negative effects!

Like it or not, it is impossible to not have an effect of some kind on the world. Even locking yourself away may upset family and friends. This means that beliefs - whatever they might be - are important and tangible. Example: people in the US are dying because there exists a belief that there are some circumstances in which it's ok to kill someone. How powerful a belief is that?

In short, beliefs can be dangerous things. It is just not enough to be accountable only to yourself for what goes on between your ears because people's awareness of their sphere of influence is poor to non-existant.

So: it's OK to believe anything you want. But any individual should be prepared to justify their beliefs because it doesn't stop at the individual.

We must also recognise that there are some really stupid and nasty beliefs out there. Racism, sexism, other isms. They are often based on mythology (eg blacks or Jews are inferior, women are always sexually available, that sort of thing). Is there a metric for gauging how "good" a belief is? Why yes: if a belief is testable and falsifiable then it a better belief than one that isn't.

To argue this, I'll start with the following "tools":

* Logic. If I abandon logic, I cannot communicate, I cannot argue, I cannot reason. Ergo my life is unliveable with it.

* My internal model of how the world and the things within it operate. It's all just a simulation within my brain / mind built from experiential data gathered from my senses.

* Feedback. By testing and re-evaluating my internal model with new input data from my senses, I validate how well I am modelling what's "out there". In this way, I learn.

Central to the whole learning process, therefore, is evaluation of new input data in terms of an existing behavioural model and the updating of that model as a result. In other words, my mind makes hypotheses about the world, input data tests those hypotheses and alters them accordingly. Testifiability and falsifiablity are therefore critical to our cognitive processes.

Beliefs are simply elements of our internal model. So what is a "good" belief? One that is testifiable and falsifiable. For instance, we can validate that being black or Jewish does not make anyone inferior. We can validate that women are not always 'up for it'. We can test that the Earth casts a circular shadow during an eclipse no matter where the sun is therefore it's not flat. Etc etc.

What, then, is a bad belief? One that is a hypothesis in our internal model that is not or even cannot be validated by experiential data. Interestingly, humans seem to be full of unvalidated and largely subconscious beliefs. Hence the demand for psychotherapy!

In terms of the above model, it is interesting to examine faith. Faith - the assertion that a statement is just True - is a belief that is deliberately not validated against input data from the outside world. It breaks the "Feedback" step and so renders our internal model permanently out of date. Once we take the step of failing to validate our beliefs against reality - usually because it makes us feel better about ourselves in some way - we open ourselves up to all myths and lies and half-truths. I hate to bring Nazi Germany into an argument, it's such overkill, but one has to ask how so many people were (at best) complicit about the "final solution". It is a horrifying example of how myths and lies in a culture where people do not validate their beliefs can result in seriously nasty consequences.

So should we respect others' beliefs? Hell no. We should challenge them at every opportunity if they demand it, and at the same time take responsibility for the validation of our own internal workings.

The Lone Ranger

Oxymoron:

I'm saving the above fine post for future reference. With you kind permission, of course.

Cheers,

Michael