You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others.
The metric for what is justified is varied, but generally the metric will be what others are willing to accept. Generally reason and logic are accepted by other humans but some humans have a very low bar for justification (like “faith”) or very high bar (a skeptic or scientist).

You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others. — DingoJones

It seems like you're conflating contentions with beliefs. Beliefs are personal.

Im not sure why a personal belief would be any different. Seems like we might have different ideas of “belief”, could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief”?

could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief” — DingoJones

No, because you're the one whos making that distinction, not me.

I'm making a distinction between contention/opinion (which has formal connotations) and belief (which has personal connotations).

Ah, right. My mistake.
So what is the difference between formal connotations and personal connotations that are pertinent here?
If its just a matter if of justifying to others or justifying to yourself then what I said still applies, the metric of justification doesnt change.

You don't need any justification. Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature

Who decides what is justified and what is not? What standard do we have to judge whether a believe is justified? — Wheatley

Who decides what is justified and what is not? — Wheatley

Those who are superior to you in a particular context. E.g. your teacher in school, or your boss at work.

What standard do we have to judge whether a believe is justified?

The standard of the person who has more power in the institutional hierarchy than you.

Justification is all about the ground(basis) for the belief in question. Whether or not a belief is justified is determined by the truth/falsity of the ground(other beliefs that support the belief in question), as well as the reasoning method used to arrive at the belief in question. So, it doesn't do the notion of justification any 'justice' to ask "who?".

Perhaps an example would help...

If my lifelong friend has always owned a Ford, and I know that he was about to buy a new car last week because he told me so, and he picked me up in a new Ford this morning so we could go to our tennis courts to play our weekly matches, then I would be justified in believing that the new car he drove this morning was his new car.

You don't need any justification. Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature — Wittgenstein

Yeah, who cares whether or not our beliefs are reasonable, rational, and/or true? Be a force of nature.

Geez!

To me it sounds a bit authoritarian, I have to justify whatever I believe — Wheatley

If you believe, you’ve already justified. Of course it’s authoritarian; you’re it.

After all, common folks (David Hume called them "vulgar") don't feel the need to justify their beliefs, why should I? — Wheatley

Justification is needed when time comes to use knowledge as the basis for action. Actions have risks, consequences. I can't make a reasoned decision about the possible outcome of an action unless I understand the factual basis of my understanding, the uncertainties associated with it, and the justification for it.

May I suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism#Non-justificationism

Thanks, I will read it. :up:

For a belief to be justified is for there to be a normative reason to believe it. That's a conceptual truth (normative reasons are sometimes called 'justifying reasons'). They are what justifications are made of. (There are different kinds of normative reason, and the ones that philosophers are interested in are 'epistemic' reasons, as these are what 'evidence' is made of. Note: one can be justified in believing something there is no evidence for, precisely because justifications are made of normative reasons and not all normative reasons are epistemic reasons).

But it does not follow from this that you have to justify all your beliefs. A belief can be justified without you having to justify it. After all, if we had to justify all of our beliefs, we would find ourselves unable to justify any of them, as every justification would appeal to some yet more basic claim that would itself require a justification, and so on. So you do not have to justify a belief in order for the belief to be justified.

As for your question - why do my beliefs need to be justified? - it cannot sincerely be asked. For you are asking to be provided with a justification, are you not? So in asking the question you acknowledge the importance of justifications.

You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. — DingoJones

You'd make a dreadful Doctor.

Patient: "Dr Dingo, I have a terrible pain in my gut"

DIngo: "Can you justify that? Present your evidence, or I will not take you seriously".

You don't have to justify your beliefs.

For a belief to be justified is for there to be a normative reason to believe it. — Bartricks

For a belief to be justified there needs to be a compelling reason to believe it.

That's a conceptual truth — Bartricks

:chin:

That's all I have time for right now. :cool:

For a belief to be justified there needs to be a compelling reason to believe it. — Wheatley

No, for a belief to be justified is for there to be a 'normative' reason to believe it. They're also called 'justifying reasons' for that very reason.

Look them up if you don't believe me.

Whether or when you need to be aware of the normative reason/s in question is another matter.

Look them up if you don't believe me. — Bartricks

Where should I look them up?

Obviously not the context I was using “belief” in, but yes ok there are some “beliefs” that do not need to be justified to be taken seriously.
If he doctor said “i believe the best remedy for your gut pain is stabbing you in the gut with a knife” then he would need to justify that belief if we are expected to take it seriously. Thats what I meant.

On one account, one needs to justify one's beliefs if one is to be said to "know" them.

Excuse my joke.

Who decides what is justified and what is not? — Wheatley

Me.

But you don't have to believe me.

Me.

But you don't have to believe me. — Banno

Pretty compelling.

But I feel compelled. — Wheatley

Well, "Banno says so" is an excellent justification.

Me: "Why do I have to mop the floor?"

Parent: "Because I said so!"

Excuse me for ruining it with a rebuttal. We’ll call it even. :wink:

For a belief to be justified is for there to be a normative reason to believe it. — Bartricks

But a "normative reason to believe" is just another way of saying "justification"

So for a belief to be justified is for it to be justified.

You're not exactly helping.

Don't be so hard on him!

Give him a chance to explain what "normative" means...

Justification is needed when time comes to use knowledge as the basis for action. Actions have risks, consequences. I can't make a reasoned decision about the possible outcome of an action unless I understand the factual basis of my understanding, the uncertainties associated with it, and the justification for it. — T Clark

That makes sense.

Why limit yourself with reason. Transcend reason. Be a force of nature — Wittgenstein

I don't want to.