[cortesoft]

> It might sound crazy, but I think a good rule of thumb is that your strongest convictions have the highest chance of being wrong or incomplete, if only because they are the hardest beliefs to challenge, update, and abandon when necessary.

I strongly disagree with this, unless we are only talking about beliefs that are about facts of the universe.

For example, my strongest belief is that all people have an equal right to exist and pursue their own purpose... this is not a belief about the facts of the universe, but about my own morality. I don't think it has a chance to be 'wrong'

[julianeon]

Arguably that's not a belief, not as he's using it. That's an emotional commitment.

Example: I love my wife. This is an emotional commitment. It can't be 'wrong' in a factual sense - that's the wrong rubric for it. So it's not really a belief in that sense either.

A belief should be amenable to facts, evidence, or some sort of feedback. If it isn't it's ultimately not a belief. It's excluded from the kinds of decision-making and reasoning he's describing.

[DiscourseFan]

>my strongest belief is that all people have an equal right to exist and pursue their own purpose

Everyone who says this naturally excludes pedophiles, nazis, or any other "undesirables" in their given society, whoever is deemed to be socially unacceptable in the current moral framework.

[nobody9999]

>Everyone who says this naturally excludes pedophiles, nazis, or any other "undesirables" in their given society, whoever is deemed to be socially unacceptable in the current moral framework.

I get your point, but I disagree.

I won't say (because it isn't true) that "my strongest belief is that all people have an equal right to exist and pursue their own purpose."

However, as you point out there are those who are "deemed to be socially unacceptable in the current moral framework." I agree that subjective standards have no place in the law -- anywhere.

I do believe that all sentient beings have agency. But in a free, open society, such agency needs to be constrained in order to promote social cohesion.

That said, we shouldn't attempt to restrict what someone believes. Rather, we should restrict the actions of others to infringe on the rights of others within a society.

To use your examples, there's nothing "wrong", per se, with being a "pedophile" (that is, a person who is attracted to/sexually desires pre-pubescent children), but actually abusing children to satisfy those desires infringes on the rights of those children and should be (and in most places already is) restricted/criminalized.

As far as "nazis" are concerned, again holding beliefs in accord with nazi-ism/white supremacy isn't "wrong", but taking action in support of such beliefs may well be wrong (e.g., shooting up a church full of African-Americans or a synagogue full of Jews, etc.) when it infringes on the rights of others.

To put a fine point on this, there's nothing inherently wrong/evil/bad about believing that sex with four year-olds or killing jews and people of color is right and good. Personally, I find such beliefs to be repugnant, but that doesn't give me (and shouldn't give the government either) the right to restrict those people from holding/sharing such beliefs.

At the same time, should someone act on those beliefs (e.g., abusing children, killing Jews or blacks, etc.), the government should absolutely at least attempt to stop (and/or detain/incarcerate) folks who are actually infringing on the rights of others.

[JakkTrent]

I believe that knowing and believe are two different things ;)

Belief is far stronger - that's why people do things all the time they themselves at one point "knew" they couldn't do.

If you start with a flawed belief - things won't improve from there. You'll ending "knowing" a whole lot of stuff that reinforces your flawed belief - simply glossing/ignoring/downplaying the facts that don't support... this becomes a bit of feedback loop after awhile.

So either learn to let go of your beliefs and adapt or at least don't firmly establish beliefs until after you know enough stuff to decide for yourself what to believe.

I reevaluate mine all the time and I'm not wrong on of my strong convictions - albeit from my point of view, which I've made as broad as possible but I'm still human.

My highest beliefs today are built upon a foundation of information, learning and mistakes - I may state a belief with a single sentence but I can write books about why I've arrived at that belief.

I don't that's morality - I sometimes do things I "know" to be immoral, when the justification warrants it, I've never knowingly decided to believe something I know is wrong - even if I was forced, I'd only pretend to believe at best.

In college I'd cheat on a test tho if I thought it the only way I'd pass - bc I believed passing was more important than the test... maybe it's a bad example of immorality.

Anyways, I completely agree with Cortesoft - I'm settling on the understanding that all people everywhere are fundamentally important, collectively and individually.

Allowing and empowering all people to live their best lives is in all of our best interest. I've gone further even than equal right to existence and yet I'm supremely confident.

I think this rant also rather effectively demonstrates exactly what the OP was saying about our strongest convictions.

An incorrect fundamental belief - like say I believed the earth was flat, that belief would be implicit in all that I believe after that, just part of my world view and muddling up everything I think about anything - I wouldn't even be aware of that.

Mental liquidity. Fantastic.

Otherwise knowledge can be an immovable trap that becomes harder to avoid/escape the more stuff you know.

Scientists are great examples of this - if it can't be scientifically methoidized it doesn't exist and therefore must be explainable within the framework they already know, bc that's always right ;)