Do You have a Moral Right to be Willfully Ignorant?

[Sunstone]

Do you have a moral right to be willfully ignorant?

For instance, do you have a moral right to oppose vaccinating your kids on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

Or, do you have a moral right to oppose the acceptance of evolution on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

Is it moral to say that all economics is equally a mere matter of opinion when you have been given sound reasons to believe otherwise?

In other words, do you have a moral right to be wrong when you actually know better than to be wrong?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

If so -- if you do have a moral right to be willfully ignorant -- do you still have a moral right to be willfully ignorant if your willful ignorance contributes to someone else's harm? For instance, you decide not to have your child vaccinated on false grounds. Your child catches the flu and infects six other children. Did you have a moral right to your willful ignorance?

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Do you have a moral right to be willfully ignorant?

For instance, do you have a moral right to oppose vaccinating your kids on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

Or, do you have a moral right to oppose the acceptance of evolution on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

Is it moral to say that all economics is equally a mere matter of opinion when you have been given sound reasons to believe otherwise?

In other words, do you have a moral right to be wrong when you actually know better than to be wrong?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

If so -- if you do have a moral right to be willfully ignorant -- do you still have a moral right to be willfully ignorant if your willful ignorance contributes to someone else's harm? For instance, you decide not to have your child vaccinated on false grounds. Your child catches the flu and infects six other children. Did you have a moral right to your willful ignorance?

Such questions are beyond ethical analysis. It is a basic fact of life that every village has its idiot. Do people have a fundamental right to be idiots? Only the Gods can say. Does the sky have a right to be blue?

[Revoltingest]

Is it moral to claim that when people disagree with one that this makes them immoral?
Is is moral to claim they one's values, judgements & opinions are inerrant truth?

If we lack the right to be wrong, who will have the authority to determine absolute truths & enforce sanctions against non-believers?
Could there be unintended consequences from this approach?

Widespread immunization seems a pretty good & defendable idea, since it avoids far more harm than the very little it causes.
Contrast this with faith-based highly centralized authoritarian economic policies, which have been doing great harm lately.
But I wouldn't call fans of such policies "immoral". I'll just say I disagree with them. (I think their intentions are good.)

[Mestemia]

I hear tell the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

[Mestemia]

It is my opinion that you have every right to be wrong.
You even have the right to be willfully ignorant.

Now since morality is nothing more than what society accepts as right and wrong, it seems to me that it is a moral right to not only be willfully ignorant, but to preach such ignorance as truth.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Do you have a moral right to be willfully ignorant?

For instance, do you have a moral right to oppose vaccinating your kids on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

"The Truth" is subjective. There are no absolutes and it is immoral and willfully ignorant to say that there are.

Or, do you have a moral right to oppose the acceptance of evolution on false grounds when you have been told the truth?

If there where one truth, how do we know when we are being deceived or not? Many times people who speak with absolute authority have been found to be incorrect. A person may make a sound decision based on the current data, but that data could be corrupt or incomplete.

Is it moral to say that all economics is equally a mere matter of opinion when you have been given sound reasons to believe otherwise?

In other words, do you have a moral right to be wrong when you actually know better than to be wrong?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

If I want to continue being a free man, I have the moral obligation to allow dissenting opinions stand before me. It would be wise to consider that no one is right 100% of the time. To not allow people to carry on even though it looks absolutely stupid to me, would be to deny their opportunity to be right when I am wrong. To say that this possibility does not exist, is immoral.

If so -- if you do have a moral right to be willfully ignorant -- do you still have a moral right to be willfully ignorant if your willful ignorance contributes to someone else's harm? For instance, you decide not to have your child vaccinated on false grounds. Your child catches the flu and infects six other children. Did you have a moral right to your willful ignorance?

No, in this instance, if I want my children to be able to attend school, I could be required to have them vaccinated. As long as I have the option to home school, it is a situation where I must take responsibility for my actions to have the right to make my own decisions.

Lets flip the coin here Phil. Every vaccination does not go well for a minority of recipients. In almost every case someone dies. It is a small risk but a risk none the less. This should be a choice otherwise your the one who would be willfully ignorant forcing people to be vaccinated and die.

Who should decide what is an acceptable risk? The person giving the vaccination or the person receiving it?

The bottom line is, people should be allowed to make stupid decisions as long as they take the responsibility for their actions.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

The bottom line is, people should be allowed to make stupid decisions as long as they take the responsibility for their decisions.

Seems to me that this is the problem.
most those claiming the moral right are dong so in an attempt to make themselves exempt from the consequences of their decisions.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Seems to me that this is the problem.
most those claiming the moral right are dong so in an attempt to make themselves exempt from the consequences of their decisions.

With every decision there should be consequences, we agree.

The point I made earlier, I would appreciate your input on is:

If we are not right 100% of the time and we do not allow people to make different decisions than us, we would be removing their opportunity to be right when we are wrong.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Revoltingest

Is is moral to claim they one's values, judgements & opinions are inerrant truth?

That is a dangerous option to require everyone to travel in lock step.

But then again, is that not socialism? We all must do the same things and recieve our ration of deserved goods and services.

No one is allowed to break ranks and follow a different path.

The idea to do things differently and receive a different result is immoral!

The Wright Brothers where crazy! Man was not made to fly!

Henry Ford, get back on your horse you immoral man!

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

If we are not right 100% of the time and we do not allow people to make different decisions than us, we would be removing their opportunity to be right when we are wrong.

I agree.
Though it seems to me that it is irrelevant to the thread.