Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together.

Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else.

* Edited. ty.

View on HN

> Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindi to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life.

a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief".

b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.

I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing.

We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.

>we cannot blame a person for their upbringing.

>We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.

What is the difference?

Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time.

If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used.

Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.

Blaming may or may not be efficient in changing behaviour. That does not matter though.

We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities.

If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone.

When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection.

(1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.

Does that mean a person who converted to one of the well-known traditional religions as an adult ought to be excluded?

Religious beliefs are a funny thing: both apparently absurd and great metaphors of spiritual life. Much in the same way as a floppy disk icon on your PC is absurd (you are NOT clicking a floppy disk) and incredibly useful. So I think it's better to refrain to refer to religious beliefs as wrong. Disclaimer: I'm not religious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com