ideas-philosophy-rationality-pillarsOfModernism

Factual beliefs cannot be unethical, only incorrect

• Belief in a factual/verifiable/objective proposition can be offensive or unethical, although it can be incorrect.
• It cannot be offensive or unethical to advocate discussion or questioning of objective propositions, provided that the person who wants to discuss or question is motivated by something better than a desire to offend or hurt or insult.
• It cannot be offensive or unethical to attempt to persuade someone of an incorrect objective proposition, provided that the persuader believes the incorrect proposition in good faith.
• It cannot be offensive or unethical to assist someone in spreading ideas, regardless of the ideas. For example, if there is someone whom most people believe to be an unethical person who advocates unethical or incorrect ideas, nevertheless it is not to be considered offensive for another person to invite them to give a lecture.

Consideration of hypothetical actions cannot be unethical, but advocacy of them can

• It is neither unethical nor offensive to advocate considering/discussing a plan that, if put into practice, would be unethical.
• It can unethical to advocate an unethical action (rather than the consideration of it), or to threaten it.
• Application of these points must bear in mind that the intended meaning of words may be other than their logical meaning. A protection racket mobster who says, "Nice store you got here. It would be a shame if it were to burn down," is actually communicating a threat, even though that is not the logical meaning of their words. This should be treated not as a mere fact nor as a mere hypothetical, but rather as a threat.

Open discussion

• Despite the existence of verifiable facts, it is the right of every person to determine for themselves what they believe and what they believe is ethical.
• Furthermore, it is the right of every person to advocate their beliefs and their ethics.
• Advocacy of incorrect beliefs and unethical actions may be unethical, but this is not to be punished (except for "punishments" which cannot be barred without affecting others' rights, for example, the right to disassociate).

A pragmatic justification of open discussion

Beliefs:

• Objective facts exist
• Many propositions which are called facts, however, are unlike mathematical proofs in that they cannot be verified with certainty approaching 100%. Rather, evidence can be provided for and against them. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a universally agreed upon standard for which propositions should be considered 'verified facts'.
• Humans often mistakenly conclude that an untruth is a verified fact. For this reason, even when individuals trust one another's good faith, individuals cannot trust one another to properly identify which facts are verified.
• Distortion of facts is an effective political tool. Humans have not yet developed a political system that creates a centralized entity that can be trusted to determine the facts, and attempts in this direction have so far usually led to politically motivated distortion of facts.
• Society often propogates untruths as facts. Therefore, one cannot rely upon community convention to identify verified facts.
• In the past several centuries, societies which have encouraged open discussion and questioning of supposed facts, even to the point of breaking taboos, have made substantial scientific and technological advances. Societies which have not encouraged open discussion and questioning of supposed facts have not made as many scientific and technological advances. This provides evidence for the assertion that a useful response to the fallibility of individuals, institutions, and community convention in factual determination is to encourage open discussion.

For these reasons among others, we advocate the right of individuals to determine their own beliefs and ethics, and to advocate them, even if their determinations are incorrect or unethical.

It's okay to defend anyone

It cannot be offensive or unethical to give someone the benefit of the doubt, or to advocate for them. For example, if there is someone whom most people believe to be a horrible criminal or to be making offensive remarks with the intent to hurt or to be advocating unethical or incorrect ideas, nevertheless it is not to be considered offensive for another person to advocate giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It's okay to question the rules

The terms of discussion may themselves be discussed. This is neither offensive nor unethical.

Privacy

• There are some questions which should not be asked, namely, questions for which a refusal to answer will be construed as themselves giving information, and for which the questionee has an ethically valid reason not to give information. For example, if a Nazi police officer asks someone, "are you sheltering any Jews in your home?", the questionee has an ethically valid reason not to give out the information, and saying "I won't say" gives the officer a reason to believe that the answer would have been "Yes". Or for example, if a person asks someone else whether or not they have some embarrassing personal flaw or habit, the questionee cannot refuse to answer without embarrassing themself.

Honesty

• In general, lying is unethical.
• However, it's okay to lie when a question which should not have been asked, as there is no other way to avoid giving information.

Right to refuse to discuss

Discussion takes time. There are more things that people might like to discuss with you than you ahve seconds in your life. Therefore, except when institutional or other concerns impose special duties, every individual has the right to refuse to discuss an issue.