The debate "Believing in something without an evidence is immoral because of epistemic responsibility" was started by
an anonymous person on
June 16, 2019, 4:14 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
maksonmakson posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Allirix posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, MADHURA, shivani, swara, sakshi, mtbtheboss, kittrapper, Lind and 8 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, Allirix, Bratzela, hollieg, Threelip, MrStealyogrill and 8 visitors disagree.
The thought determines it, sure. But, it does not become moral or immoral until I act on it. If it remains only a thought, it is not moral or immoral.
I agree that the action would be moral, but the thought determines it. And I see your point, maybe you're right.
But, the thought would not be the moral action, the act would. You are advocating for moral thought crime, which I would argue is an immoral concept
you may not kill him, but you're likely to do other things, like not saying hello (this is a stupid example), and make him feel bad
Thoughts may affect our actions, but they are not our actions. If I believe that I want to legitimately kill my neighbor but don't do it, I have don't nothing wrong. Furthermore, no immoral action will exist until I do act.
Well your thoughts influence actions.
And one same action could be both moral or immoral, depending of a reason why someone did something, and the reason is a thought. If I just walk, that's nothing immoral. But if I, while I'm walking, accidentally kill a bug, for an example, that's still moral because I didn't know that I'll kill a bug. And if I walk and intentionally kill a bug, well that's immoral. So actions do indeed need to be taken, but we don't judge the action, we judge the reason and the awareness.
I'll give you another example. If you work as a cashier, and you always give back the correct change (same action), that could be moral and that could be immoral, depending of why do you do that. If you do that because you fear your reputation, that's immoral, but if you're doing that because you want to be fair, that's moral. Credits to Immanuel Kant haha
So having unfounded beliefs could result in unfounded, and therefore immoral actions.
I don't think that thoughts can be immoral, only actions. My thought may be the justification of my actions, but only the actions hold moral value
Blind faith won't make society any better.
No, I didn't say it's immoral to not know something for sure, but to believe in something without any evidence. Take the big bang as an example. We are not sure if it really happened, but there is some evidence that suggests that it did. And take believing in a horoscope as another example. There's no single piece of evidence that proves horoscope, so it's immoral to believe in horoscope, although we are not sure if horoscope is real.
Trust is important for society to function. Doubting everything is important, but you don't have to not believe.
Well, we don't know anything for sure, other than our consciousness exists in some form. So, science would be immoral by your claim
Unfounded beliefs result in unfounded actions and if you're aware of that, that's immoral, because it directs your behavior towards something based on an assumption that can easily be not true.