I may be wrong about various things, but if I am, it's obviously out of ignorance, not malice. I assume the same is true of everyone.

Further, there are opportunities that will be lost where belief itself is put on trial. In order to engage others in an exchange of ideas, it will be necessary to allow free expression.

I think you may need another option .. don't know! This is one very big can of worms you've opened setting all kinds of questions pinging round my brain like ..

Do the connotations of 'wrong' mean that most people are unable to effectively differentiate the two. Is there any real distinction between wrong as a matter of fact and wrong in a moral sense?

Can people help what they believe? If not can they be held morally responsible for beliefs that are wrong (in either sense)? Clearly if they act on those beliefs in manners which break the law they can and must be held legally responsible but, morally responsible?

Is belief changeable? If not is there any point to condmenation or protest of beliefs? If so, are we just replacing one brainwashing with another albeit one with the official stamp of approval from the Good Belief Advisory Council?

Is there not a sense in which all belief good,, bad, or indifferent is morally questionable given that it must involve at least some conclusions based on facts not in evidence?

And that's just in the five minuted between reading this and taking the dog out for her final urination of the day! Who knows what I'll have come up with by tomorrow?

I may be wrong about various things, but if I am, it's obviously out of ignorance, not malice. I assume the same is true of everyone. — Mongrel

No, it's not that black-and-white. There can be a combination of the two, and varying degrees of each. For example, I take responsibility for some of my awful teenage views. I wasn't exactly forced into having such a bad attitude. Sure, I was more naïve, more immature, and more easily influenced, but deep down I knew right from wrong, and chose to be rebellious and bury my conscience when it became an inconvenience.

Further, there are opportunities that will be lost where belief itself is put on trial. In order to engage others in an exchange of ideas, it will be necessary to allow free expression. — Mongrel

I've not argued against freedom of expression - although, as with most things, there will likely be consequences. But freedom of expression is a red herring. The issue in this discussion is whether or not it is correct to categorise or judge beliefs, or the expression thereof, as right or wrong - whether that even makes sense, or is a category error. Whether we should judge beliefs is a different question (although in general, I'd answer in the affirmative).

Do the connotations of 'wrong' mean that most people are unable to effectively differentiate the two. Is there any real distinction between wrong as a matter of fact and wrong in a moral sense? — Barry Etheridge

The two different senses can certainly be linked, can correlate, and even perhaps be conflated by some people in some cases... but most people, I think, can clearly distinguish between them both abstractly in themselves and by example. People understand the difference in meaning, and can differentiate between that which is factually incorrect (e.g. that the Earth is flat) and that which is immoral (e.g. child abuse).

Can people help what they believe? If not can they be held morally responsible for beliefs that are wrong (in either sense)? Clearly if they act on those beliefs in manners which break the law they can and must be held legally responsible but, morally responsible? — Barry Etheridge

It's complicated, but in at least some cases, I think that we do have some control over how our beliefs are formed or determined, and sometimes that can be enough to alter our beliefs. It's about culpability, and there are various factors which play into that, such as age, for example.

Is belief changeable? — Barry Etheridge

Depends. Can you change the belief that you're alive? Personally, I find that belief of mine practically impossible to change. I cannot change it by will power or attempts at self-deception, nor has anyone succeeded in convincing me otherwise. But not all beliefs are like that. Our beliefs have changed over time - some of them at least. And we have some influence or control over our circumstances which lead to the formation of beliefs, if not direct influence or control over our beliefs themselves.

If not is there any point to condmenation or protest of beliefs? If so, are we just replacing one brainwashing with another albeit one with the official stamp of approval from the Good Belief Advisory Council? — Barry Etheridge

My previous answers provide an answer to this also, namely that there can be, and almost always is, a point to condemnation and protest of beliefs. But if the aim is to alter said belief, then there is no guarantee of success, nor even in some cases is it likely. But this can't be crudely equated with brainwashing. It's a bit more nuanced than that.

Is there not a sense in which all belief - good, bad, or indifferent - is morally questionable, given that it must involve at least some conclusions based on facts not in evidence? — Barry Etheridge

Sure. Absolute certainty is rare, if even achievable. We are fallible by nature and not omniscient. We don't always have access to all of the facts or available evidence - in fact, we rarely do.

Are you asking whether it can be immoral to hold beliefs that immoral acts are good, such as, for example, that it is good to rape and murder infants?

Or are you asking whether it can be immoral to hold certain beliefs that are not themselves beliefs about moral or ethical matters at all?

Are you asking whether it can be immoral to hold beliefs that immoral acts are good, such as, for example, that it is good to rape and murder infants? — John

No, not specifically.

Or are you asking whether it can be immoral to hold certain beliefs that are not themselves beliefs about moral or ethical matters at all? — John

No. Again, that wasn't the question. I'm assuming an ethical context, or at least what would appear to be an ethical context. I accept that some beliefs are amoral, but the question is whether belief itself is, by virtue of being belief, not the sort of thing that can be moral or immoral in any context.

These are the comments which lead to the creation of this discussion:

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't. — Ovaloid

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.) — Mongrel

It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. — Sapientia

Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe. — Michael

Re the comments about beliefs, I'm not of the view that any beliefs, or even any speech, is morally wrong. — Terrapin Station

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't. — Ovaloid

I'd like to clarify: I meant matter-of-fact beliefs not attitudes.

I'm not of the view that any beliefs, or even any speech, is morally wrong. — Terrapin Station

What about the classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre?

Further, there are opportunities that will be lost where belief itself is put on trial. In order to engage others in an exchange of ideas, it will be necessary to allow free expression. — Mongrel

Freedom in what ideas can be expressed, freedom in how they are expressed, neither or both?
I think yes about what ideas can be expressed but not about how they are expressed. I think it's good to moderate heated comments.

So, you are asking whether beliefs that are not acted upon can be immoral? Say someone believed that it was good to rape and murder infants; are you asking whether that belief is immoral even if the believer does not act on it, by for example raping and murdering infants or exhort others to do so?

If that is the question, then the answer might be that the belief is immoral only if it leads to an immoral action. And even then, it might be said that it is the action, not the belief per se that is immoral. On the other hand, according to the bible: " He who lusts after a women has already committed adultery with her in his heart". But then, is that holding a belief or entertaining a desire? Can desires, even if not acted upon, be immoral? If desires,per se, can be immoral, then why not beliefs?

I'd like to clarify: I meant matter-of-fact beliefs not attitudes. — Ovaloid

Okay. So, does that mean that you believe that matter-of-fact beliefs can't be morally right or wrong? So, for example, if one believes that, as a matter of fact, rape is okay, or even good, then that isn't morally wrong? If so, that requires an explanation.

What about the classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre? — Ovaloid

Yes, that's wrong.

Freedom in what ideas can be expressed, freedom in how they are expressed, neither or both?

I think yes about what ideas can be expressed but not about how they are expressed. I think it's good to moderate heated comments. — Ovaloid

I think that there is a red line which can be crossed in terms of both content and manner of expression, both in terms of morality and legality. And this is reflected in UK law, as well as here on the forum.

So, are you suggesting that it's immoral to have a false moral belief?

So, you are asking whether beliefs that are not acted upon can be immoral? — John

Is that even possible? Surely belief cannot ever be separated from action. At the very least, belief must moderate behaviour or it's not a genuine belief at all. If I believe that cuckoo clocks are a major health hazard, can I nevertheless enter a clock shop with complete ease? If I believe that atheists are going to Hell, can I have any kind of relationship with one that is completely unaffected?

So, you are asking whether beliefs that are not acted upon can be immoral? Say someone believed that it was good to rape and murder infants; are you asking whether that belief is immoral even if the believer does not act on it, by for example raping and murdering infants or exhort others to do so? — John

Yes. I think that it's still a bad thing to believe. The belief itself is immoral. The believer should not have that belief. It is wrong to believe that it's good to rape and murder infants. That's not likely to be just an innocent mistake either; it is immoral.

Even in the unrealistic and improbable hypothetical scenario that the believer does not act on it, by, for example, raping and murdering infants or exhorting others to do so, it is still damaging in terms of virtue or how infants should be understood.

And this is reflected in UK law. — Sapientia

It's a very scratched, dull, and cracked mirror then!

So, are you suggesting that it's morally wrong to have a false moral belief? — Michael

Not necessarily, but only if one is culpable. And there can be mitigating circumstances. But in some cases, yes.

Not necessarily, but only if one is culpable. — Sapientia

What's the difference between being culpable for having a false moral belief and not being culpable?

What's the difference between being culpable for having a false moral belief and not being culpable? — Michael

Moral responsibility. The former has it, whereas the latter lacks it.

So what's the difference between being morally responsible for having a false moral belief and not being morally responsible? What are the determining factors?

Is that even possible? Surely belief cannot ever be separated from action. At the very least, belief must moderate behaviour or it's not a genuine belief at all. If I believe that cuckoo clocks are a major health hazard, can I nevertheless enter a clock shop with complete ease? If I believe that atheists are going to Hell, can I have any kind of relationship with one that is completely unaffected? — Barry Etheridge

Yes, in reality, beliefs affect people, even if not in terms of actions you might expect to see as a result, or in terms of any (external) action at all, but rather psychologically.

It's a very scratched, dull, and cracked mirror then! — Barry Etheridge

Well, there are legal exceptions based on ethical reasoning, whether you agree with them or not. And the U.K. is much better in terms of freedom of speech and expression than many, many other places around the world.

So what's the difference between being morally responsible for having a false moral belief and not being morally responsible? What are the determining factors? — Michael

It can be complex. But, for example, usually children aren't as morally responsible as adults with full mental capacity. So, that's two factors: age and mental capacity.

So it's immoral for an adult with full mental capacity to have a false moral belief?

Not necessarily, no. Like I said, it's complex. And it's open to discussion and debate. It might make more sense to judge it case by case and examine the details before jumping to any conclusion.

Then can you give me an example of an immoral false moral belief and a not-immoral false moral belief (assuming an adult with full mental capacities)?

Then can you give me an example of an immoral false moral belief and a not-immoral false moral belief? — Michael

Sure. I mentioned one already. When I attended secondary school, I was at times judgemental and abusive without good reason, and I believed that that was okay. I was culpable for that, although there were some mitigating factors.

But if I was, say, six-years-old, and I didn't really know any better, and my single parent mother hadn't put much effort into teaching me right from wrong, then I wouldn't be culpable for that wrong belief about acceptable ways of treating others.

The former is morally wrong on two accounts: the irresponsibility of the agent as well as the belief itself; and the latter is morally wrong on just one: the belief itself.

(assuming an adult with full mental capacities)? — Michael

Sigh. Your edit was too late! :D

The former is morally wrong on two accounts: the irresponsibility of the agent as well as the belief itself; and the latter is morally wrong on just one: the belief itself. — Sapientia

So you are saying that it is immoral to have a false moral belief? It's just that the character of the person determines the severity of the immorality?

No, I meant that the content of the belief is immoral, but it is not immoral to have it under those circumstances.

No, I meant that the content of the belief is immoral, but it is not immoral to have it under those circumstances. — Sapientia

OK, so you're drawing a distinction between a person being immoral and a belief being immoral such that a person can have an immoral belief but not be immoral?

Then to rephrase my original question: you're suggesting that a false moral belief is immoral? For any x, if "x is (im)moral" is false then the belief that x is (im)moral is immoral?

OK, so you're drawing a distinction between a person being immoral and a belief being immoral such that a person can have an immoral belief but not be immoral? — Michael

Yes.

Then to rephrase my original question: you're suggesting that a false moral belief is immoral? — Michael

An immoral belief is immoral. There might well be exceptions to the way that you've worded it. A false moral belief isn't necessarily immoral, just false. But at least some false moral beliefs are immoral.