Rational beliefs should be able to withstand scrutiny and opposing arguments. The inability to do so indicates that the belief is more about personal bias and emotional investment rather than objective analysis.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. “Don’t litter” would be a good example that’s really difficult to honestly argue against.

    • magicbeans@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m not going to say you are wrong if you don’t litter, but I don’t think abstaining from littering is a moral duty. if it can break down in the next month, or is a natural mineral or metal, I don’t think “littering” is a big deal.

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well sure, no disagreement there. However when talking about plastics and other stuff that remains there in the nature for decades I’d find it really difficult to justify.