Beliefs don't matter. They don't determine the value of a person.

[Guaranteed]

I've been rolling this around in my mind for awhile, and here's my shot at posting it. Let's see if I can get the proper idea across.

A person's political beliefs don't make the person a good or bad person. The value of a person is determined by their actions, not what they idealize.

Now, of course a person's ideals- to a certain extent- can affect a person's behavior. Beliefs seem to be a starting point from which a person may begin to judge themselves. But, in the long run, beliefs are not used as much in that way as they are used as a substitute for being a good person. A shortcut to righteousness. A shallow smokescreen distracting from that which truly determines the value of a person- which is what they contribute to the world and their fellow human beings.

This is the disconnect I see everywhere between beliefs, or ideals (although I don't think those terms are interchangeable- I see ideals as a subset of beliefs), and being a good person. Instead of being vigilant in watching one's own behavior to ensure that one is being good to others, a person judges themselves by the righteousness of what they can perceive in their own mind. Meanwhile, the inner workings of the person's mind are not apparent to them, and while they might hold the highest of all ideals their behavior may go unchecked and conform only slightly to those ideals that they insist they hold dear. This, again, I see everywhere.

Keep in mind that speaking beliefs is very much a part of determining the value of a person, though. Spreading hateful ideas offers nothing constructive to the world- certainly, hate is destructive. Speech, strictly is part of behavior. But even that is not the point- the point is that what matters are the consequences of one's actions.

So my suggestion is this- we should not worry about what we believe. It doesn't matter. If we want to be good people, we need to determine in our own minds not what should be in the world, but what should be in our own interactions with that world and its people.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. I was with you until the body of your post.

How will a person know if their behavior is good or bad if they don't examine their conduct in light of their ideas?

[Guaranteed]

4. Right- I totally understand your objection.

Maybe you can help me out with this. It's difficult to explain, but I think I'm separating certain types of beliefs from each other.

I think I agree that the only way a person can judge themselves is by comparing their actions to some kind of belief already in their mind. However, what I see in my mind when I think of what a good person does is highly subjective, and seems separable, to me, from ideological beliefs.

By subjective I mean somewhat unexplainable. Like, what does the word "good" mean? While people may differ in ideology often, it seems that, given a hypothetical moral or ethical situation, people tend to agree much more as to what the right thing to do is. That picture of a good person, in one's mind, while it can not be defined, I would trust more.

I think the difference is the focus- the judgment process itself. Given a particular situation, if a person takes the time and has the courage to address the situation and wonder "What is the right thing for ME to do here," or "What WOULD be the right thing for me to do, here," the focus is on the reality of the person's behavior and the consequences of their actions to the world. It's not simply theortical, or an opinion- i.e., I think things would be better if the rich were taxed more- but a person is forced to take into account the fact that what they do truly affects things.

[More Than A Feeling]

10. I see what you are saying.

You've decided that political opinions are different from the opinions that spawn conduct towards others in the course of everyday life, which for most people does not include political activity. I know that George Lakoff, for one, would back you up, because he claims that its entirely possible to have different mentalities ("strict father" or "nurturing parent"), in different areas of one's life. I don't think that one or the other is more important, personally. They are equally important, which is not an entirely satisfying answer, I know.

[Zensea]

2. sounds like existentialism

Familiarize yourself with it, if you haven't already (and I'm guessing you already have).

The counter-argument is that beliefs shape action, but there is a counter to that argument also which you get at in the fourth paragraph.

An expansion of the thesis would be that neither beliefs nor actions determine the value of a person as a person, an analogous thesis being that all humans have rights, independent of their actions or beliefs.

happy reasoning

[Guaranteed]

6. It could be existentialist

I have a degree in philosophy, but we never studied existentialism, let alone the ethics of it. Sounds like something to look into.

I'd certainly agree that all people have rights- I'm a bit of a naturalist in that way- but I certainly wouldn't say that the moral value of all people's actions is the same. It might be that I used the term "value" too broadly.

[Exiled in America]

15. A fellow philosopher!

I have a degree in philosophy as well. I can't believe you graduated without studying existentialism! :gasp:

That's not a slam, I'm sure you are thoroughly well educated. I am just deeply indebted to existentialism. Some of the most powerful philosophy I've ever read came from existentialist writers. Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism, and I value his writing a great deal. Nietzsche is considered an existentialist writer. Jean Paul Sartre is one of the more significant philosophers of the 20th century and considered the preeminent figure of existentialism. His book, Being and Nothingness, was the hardest book I ever started. :)

And Paul Tillich, philosopher and theologian, was one of my favorite thinkers I've ever read.

[Guaranteed]

17. I actually did read the first few pages of

Being and Nothingness. Didn't understand a lick of it, with all the different Beings he was constructing.

But I'm reading some of this introductory material on existential ethics, and it is very appealing.

[Exiled in America]

19. Some of his other stuff is very approachable.

But man, Being and Nothingness is considered such a important work, it pains me that I could not understanding haha. But at least I admit that.

The closest I could come is to study numerous secondary sources and start to piece together some understanding.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

28. Sartre is such an underrated writer. "No Exit" and "The Flies" are two

of the greatest plays ever written.

[Guaranteed]

13. Here's an interesting introduction to existential ethics:

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/ex_ethics.html

[Exiled in America]

14. That's sort of a bastardized (not a slam) version of existentialism

existentialism didn't have much to say about an existing human being's belief structure about actual life vs. the actions of that human being in life. In fact Jean Paul Sartre had a pretty solidly articulated ethical belief system, he was not in any sense a nihilist. The real issue at the heart of existentialism was an ontological one.

So existentialism rejected the idea that essence preceded existence, or the notion that there were sort of "universal truths" that preceded a human beings arrival on the plane of existence. It rejected the idea that there were preexisting essential qualities to "man."

Instead, it argued not that beliefs don't matter, but that there are not "beliefs" that precede existence. Existence precedes essence - i.e. we arrive on the scene and then determine for ourselves our "essence" which includes our belief structure, which governs our actions and behavior.

It's pretty impossible to separate one's actions from one's beliefs. You act or fail to act because you believe something to be true.

[Guaranteed]

18. I think I have to disagree with the assertion that you can't

separate at least stated beliefs from actions. I'm just constantly seeing a huge chasm between what people say they believe and what they do.

In fact, to take this a bit farther- I think what is passing for "beliefs" now is used much more for labeling and group formation. They're used for self-identification, rather than self-guidance.

[Exiled in America]

20. Yeah, I'm really excited to discuss that more. But I have to go to bed - tomorrow!

Remind me.

[cosmik debris]

3. "If we want to be good people..." How wonderfully idealistic.

What about people who don't want to be good people? And who gets to decide what good people do? Clear up the bit on value judgments and then get back to me.

[Guaranteed]

7. Well, if people don't want to be good people, then they probably,

for the most part, won't be. I suppose they could just fall into it, but that's not very likely in the world that we live in. I think being a good person is somewhat unnatural, at least to most, and it is something that has to be worked at.

As far as "who decides" what good people do, I don't think that, at least in the terms I am discussing things- which is from a self-examinatory standpoint- anyone can be judged but by themselves. Of course anyone can judge anyone else, using whatever standards they may, but the idea here is that our focus should be who we are, how we are affecting the world and our fellow people, not what we simply believe. Beliefs are pretty cheap.

[cosmik debris]

27. So let's use the extreme example for effect

Hitler thought he was a good person. Mohandas Gandhi thought that he was a good person. Who is right? It doesn't matter until you tell us what a good person is, does, or believes. Good person is a subjective, meaningless term that relates to YOUR values. It has no universal meaning.

Until you define your terms, your statements are meaningless.

[riderinthestorm]

5. For a practical example, I used to accompany rape victims who wanted to get an abortion

to the clinic. We had to walk a gauntlet of impassioned people pleading for these women to not murder their "unborn child".

These impassioned people were putting into real practice and action, their beliefs.

They were destructive however to a 13 year old incest victim (for example) who simply wanted to get rid of a terrible reminder of their stepdad's unwanted rape.

So who is the "good" guy here? Those who feel strongly that abortion is murder and who actively work to prevent "murder", or those of us who firmly believe reproductive rights belong to each individual woman/girl and will be pro-active in our actions to support those ideals?

I would posit that we very much HAVE to worry about what people believe because some interactions (such as those actions by protesters at abortion clinics for example) simply must be stopped. Those folks believe they are the "good" people, doing the "good action".

[Guaranteed]

8. Yes, beliefs in many instances do lead to action. So it helps to

have the "right" beliefs.

But what about those who believed the same as those protestors did, but stayed home and left that girl alone? They didn't hurt her, and there are many more of them.

Or, a more convincing example: Someone who believes that everyone should be treated with equality and respect, but routinely treats everyone they meet like human garbage. This is not uncommon, either.

Again, I think this is a focus thing. We should define ourselves much more by our effect on the world than by these mental constructions that we've set up for ourselves.

In other words, those protestors should be thinking about the effect they were having on this very young girl.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Oh I absolutely KNOW they were thinking about the effect they would have on young girls!

Their whole activism was geared towards having an effect. They honestly believe they are in a life or death struggle against that girl "murdering" her unborn child.

I absolutely believe I am in a life or death struggle to restore sanity to a traumatized young girl trying to put her life back together.

All of us believe we are doing "good". But who is really doing "good"? You may think that millions of people have "stayed home" and "left that girl alone" and "didn't hurt her" since they weren't out there in the parking lot of the abortion clinic but their voting actions reveal otherwise (by voting for anti-abortion candidates or for parental notification legislation etc.)

Who says what beliefs are "right?" I believe mine are right, the folks I encounter at an abortion clinic believe in their position just as strongly.

Anti-abortion advocates are working hard to make sure that their effect on the world is effective. They DO define themselves this way - I don't believe for one moment in their position but I don't agree with your premise that "beliefs don't matter, only actions do". Both are important, both must be evaluated in determining good or bad, beliefs manifest themselves in ways that are often intangible and if we don't confront those wrong beliefs outside of actionable events, we will allow evil to occur.

[Guaranteed]

16. Yes, but the common thread in your argument is that

the girl was only affected by actions- the voting in particular. The beliefs themselves are totally innocuous- it is the actions that are to be judged, and at the very least part of the judgment will be negative against those who acted on those anti-abortion beliefs not because of the beliefs themselves, but because of how those actions affected that girl. That is before any determination of whether abortion is morally wrong OR whether it should be legal.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Uhm I'm not following you.

As I read your OP, you stated that beliefs don't measure the value of a person, only actions measure the value of a person.

And that "good" actions are measurable. And so the person's "value" can be measured. (and perhaps you were making the point that people can find universal actions/values to agree upon and thus make commonality?! extrapolating here....)

Anyway, I brought up the example of two groups of people, diametrically opposed, who both take "action" based upon their beliefs. The beliefs are NOT innocuous, not in the least.

The anti-abortion people believe their actions have a positive effect on anyone entering the clinic: they create guilt (?), second thoughts (?), agitation (?) - these are precisely the "positive" judgement they believe they are creating. They WANT people to second guess their decision to go to that clinic. They don't see anything negative about their actions.

I however, want my client to feel positive about her choices in taking control of her life and her reproduction/femininity.

I used the example of voting as just a further (albeit innocuous) indication of actions that people take based upon their beliefs, and absolutely these DO reflect upon their value as people imho.

[Guaranteed]

22. My point is just the focusing point of judgment.

I'm saying that the judgment point is at the point of action, not at the point of belief. Beliefs themselves don't do anything to, or for, anyone.

Those people- all people- need to be thinking about the real effects of what they are doing, not cogitating over what they think is right in a vacuum.

[riderinthestorm]

23. Sorry them, I firmly disagree with your premise. I have seen beliefs actually "do" things to people

and I have actually seen (my) beliefs, in action, "do" things for people.

I don't act in a vacuum, I KNOW the real effects of my actions and I suppose my opponents on the opposite side of the abortion picket line believe they KNOW the effects of their actions. They believe their beliefs and actions are "right". The "real effects" of their actions (as horrifying as they are to people like me and my young girl example), are absolutely terrific in their eyes. They LOVE that they have caused emotional turmoil and distress - that is exactly the result they desire.

They WANT anyone going to that clinic to second guess their actions. They pray for people to back out of getting an abortion based upon their actions. In fact, I have been with women who HAVE backed out of abortions based upon their actions. I have seen both sides of that equation and I can tell you, the horror stories are the ones that stay with you.... I went with one woman, 21 years old, raped, who backed out. She had the baby and killed herself 2 years later. Yay! The zygote was spared and lived to be raised by a drug addicted grandmother while the 23 year old despaired and finally killed herself.

I believe those demonstrators at abortion clinics are evil, they believe they are righteously justified.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by the "focusing point of judgement". I still don't get your POV.

[sandnsea]

9. Belief is critical

It's how you judge the altruism of the action. Going back to nonprofits. Someone making six figures at a nonprofit may not have any real concern for the very cause they're working for, it may be the money and access to power that motivates that person. Their belief system will give you a window into their motive. Of course, you can't judge that belief system by words alone, which is what far too many people do these days. Whether someone's belief system creates a set of ethics and morals that you value, and whether they act consistently on those ethics and morals, is the question. It's the whole package, and a person's belief system is at the core of every individual.

[Exiled in America]

12. It's not possible to separate beliefs from actions.

You act out what you believe.

[tkmorris]

25. But I think the original point

The original point is that people all too often do NOT act out what they profess to believe. Further, that different, and sometimes diametrically opposed beliefs can lead to equally moral actions. It was interesting to me that a later poster pointed out the lack of any real a priori "morally correct" action, and I think that is an important distinction from the original post. It is possible for different individuals or groups of people to behave in ways that are at odds with one another while each is being true to the belief system they have developed and feel to be morally correct.

Again, an important point is made there. Since there is not any universal "correct" answer to what constitutes moral behavior, a moral absolute which exists prior to and exclusive of the individual, the judgement must be left to the individual.

Again though, belief does NOT always translate into appropriate action. If I believed that it did I would be forced to admit that there are far more people in this world who believe as say Ayn Rand does than I believe there are. I find that "enlightened self-interest" view of the world to be absolutely repugnant. I believe rather that many if not most of the people who in my view are acting in immoral ways do so not because they are true to their belief but instead are examples of human beings ability to self delude, and thus betray their own professed beliefs by acting in ways that are inconsistent with them.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

24. Nicely thought through...

Appearances are for nought. We are worthy only (in my estimation) by adhering to actions that mirror truths we have determined to merit a real, tangible benefit to the greater good of society in which we interact.

[tkmorris]

26. Just wanted to add......... GOOD TOPIC