Belief and Accountability: A Philosophical and Historical Examination

Imagine someone who believes they have the right to take whatever they want. They rob a bank and get arrested. Are they being punished for the robbery, or for believing they had the right to commit it? This dilemma, rooted in historical events and philosophical debates, challenges our understanding of belief and accountability, intriguing both philosophers and political thinkers with the question of whether individuals should be held responsible for their beliefs. Despite their disagreements, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes united on the idea that governments primarily protect citizens from the harmful actions of others, regardless of their intent. They argue that governments have the authority to hold individuals accountable for their destructive actions, particularly when those actions result from harmful beliefs. While individuals should have the freedom to form their own beliefs, it is imperative to recognize the influence of cultural and social factors in the decision-making process. For instance, someone raised in a society condoning slavery is more likely to believe slavery is acceptable. Currently, people give governments the authority to provide consequences for people’s actions, yet they retain the freedom to formulate their belief systems while recognizing external factors like cultural and societal influences that shape their decision-making process. In essence, with the personal yet universal complexity of belief, people develop their views from their surrounding environment, lifelong experiences, and cognitive biases, so individuals should not be responsible merely for their beliefs; however, they should be accountable when their beliefs result in harm to others and punished accordingly.

Understanding the nature of belief is crucial in this context. Philosophers have debated the definition of belief since the time of Socrates and Plato. The verb “believe” means considering something “true or honest.” Modern Western philosophy, heavily influenced by Socrates, Plato, and Descartes, argues that one’s “belief ought to be based solely on sufficient evidence.” While this definition holds, it fails to consider the circumstances involving said evidence. Later, Hume studied the nature of belief and further developed its definition by acknowledging the liveliness of beliefs and how they change people’s perceptions. People are led to believe what they choose based on their own biases rather than relying solely on facts. Meiland, a contemporary American philosopher, agrees with Hume. He provides an example of reliance on evidence versus interpretation. Imagine a wife who finds another woman’s lipstick stain on her husband’s handkerchief. She faces a choice: she could follow the evidence and accuse her husband of cheating, or she could choose to believe he is faithful, considering the stain might be from an innocent gesture. Despite the possibility that her belief may not match the facts, her perspective justifies her decision. This example illustrates the complexity of belief, showing that beliefs themselves are neutral, yet they profoundly influence how individuals interpret and respond to situations.

While beliefs are deeply personal, the reasons why humans choose what they do believe in are often universal. The two main principles that shape beliefs are personal experiences and cognitive biases. Personal experiences influence one’s perceptions of reality and shape their beliefs by providing firsthand information and emotional connections, particularly those formed during childhood. Cognitive biases, on the other hand, refer to patterns that rationalize one’s judgment, leading individuals to process information confirming their preexisting expectations. Additionally, the power of external influence plays a significant role in shaping one’s beliefs. People often adopt the beliefs of those around them. For example, studies of the nature versus nurture debate show that twins separated at birth can develop very different beliefs. Although heredity accounts for half of their identity, the different environments they experience play a significant role in their belief systems. Likewise, people raised in environments where the established rules of behavior are questioned—in the form of laws created by the government—are likely to adopt similar questioning attitudes.

Historical examples of philosophers challenging governments showcase the influence of the environment on beliefs. People wonder about the relationship between beliefs and governments, but laws restrict a person’s life. Although humans are free, equal, and independent by nature, these natural rights are taken away when they join a community, thereby consenting to follow the rules of that community. Without laws, humans would be in constant warfare due to their selfish nature, resulting in a “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” life. Therefore, people agree to laws created by the government to ensure accountability for their actions. However, when the government fails to protect citizens’ rights, the people are justified in overthrowing that government. For instance, Hobbes wrote Leviathan in response to the chaos of the English Civil War. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government was influenced by the changes brought about by the Glorious Revolution, and Rousseau’s The Social Contract was a reaction to the corruption in France, which led to the French Revolution. Since the laws established by the government shape citizens’ actions, when most citizens become discontent with those laws, the likelihood of a revolution increases. Conversely, if the majority of people are in alignment with the government, fewer individuals will question it. This dynamic illustrates how collective attitudes and societal norms can significantly influence individual beliefs. In short, although a government holds its citizens accountable for their actions, it cannot hold people accountable for what they believe until these beliefs become actions.

Since the dawn of humanity, the solar system has been a subject humans cannot ignore. The sun shines during the day, and the night sky is lit by the moon and stars. The sun can be found in paintings dating back to the third millennium BCE. A few millennia later, the first systematic astronomical observations were documented in the first century BCE in AssyroBabylon of Mesopotamia. During these ancient societies, most people believed God had placed Earth and humanity at the center of the universe. In the fourth century BCE, a man from Ancient Greece, Eudoxus, designed the first model of a geocentric universe.xi Eudoxus also constructed Oktaëteris, an eight-year calendar system schematically explained by constellations and established phases associated with fixed stars and weather. Although Eudoxus’s geocentric universe design had some flaws, it was improved by Aristotle and Ptolemy, and its general idea was still utilized 2,000 years later. Because it was so widely recognized, it took more than a century for people to accept the heliocentric universe suggested by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, even though it was more logical. This heliocentric system was not rejected by the people but rather by the Roman Catholic Church. In 1616, the church still believed God had situated humanity at the center of the universe and thereby temporarily banned the book On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres by Copernicus, which contained the theory of Earth revolving around the sun. Finally, it was republished after stating the theory was purely hypothetical. However, starting in the 17th century, this objection should no longer be a concern since Galileo Galilei had proven the sun was the center of the solar system. However, the church continued to censor anyone who opposed its belief. Had Galileo’s powerful friend not intervened on his behalf, he would have been tortured and possibly executed for spreading this truth. This case questions the legitimacy of government, as those who agreed with Copernicus and Galileo were punished for expressing their beliefs, even though they were correct about reality. This unjust punishment held them accountable for their accurate views, proving that regardless of the dominance of the people believing in something, they could still be wrong.

From the Roman Catholic Church leadership’s perspective, heliocentric models of the solar system threatened to destabilize the church’s authority. The church prioritized maintaining its power over the factual correctness of its beliefs. Despite the civilian government and the general populace not being significantly affected by these scientific revelations, the church could not tolerate challenges to its authority. The church’s temporary ban on Copernicus’s work and its censorship of Galileo were measures taken to preserve their influence. These actions, however, infringed upon free speech. By suppressing these scientific truths, the church not only made a significant error but also took away people’s freedom.

While ideas like the heliocentric model did not lead to obvious violence, warfare, or destruction, other beliefs did. Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany exemplified this extreme kind of belief. After World War I ended in 1918, Germany resided in a state of economic and political instability. The majority of citizens thought they had been humiliated by the Versailles Treaty, many attempted to overthrow Germany’s post-war government through various political parties. In 1923, the Nazi Party had an estimated membership of 50,000 supporters. The party had formulated a coup d’état, which was eventually remembered as the Beer Hall Putsch. The plan was simple: take control of the state government, overthrow the German Federal party, and create a “greater” German Reich that would determine citizenship based on a person’s race. This carefully engineered coup turned out to be a disaster as the party was deserted by several allies, and the government thwarted its other allies. This coup led to the arrest of Hitler, who was sentenced to five years of imprisonment. Although Hitler was freed from imprisonment after nine months, he used this time to write a book. Called Mein Kampf, it was published in 1925 and advocated a belief system based on racial purity and the concept of a master race. The book promotes the idea that the Aryan race was superior and that the Jews, along with other minorities were to blame for Germany’s problems. Although one cannot hold others accountable for their beliefs even if they might be wrong, in this case, Hitler took action based on these beliefs.

As history shows, the belief system of the Nazi party led to the downfall of the existing German government, the near genocide of the Jewish people, military conflicts with many nations, war crimes, and numerous other atrocities. Because of these actions, the beliefs of the Nazi Party could not go unchallenged. The people of the world collectively decided this belief system had crossed the line between potentially dangerous philosophical worldviews to crimes against humanity that had to be adjudicated and terminated. Hitler himself chose suicide rather than submitting to the judgment and punishment of the Allied forces and their respective governments. Other Nazi leaders eventually chose suicide themselves, but many were captured and tried, resulting in long-term imprisonment or execution. The Allied governments’ choice of appeasing Hitler in WWII by initially allowing him to move militarily against some small countries in Europe serving as sacrifices to his demands, including the German annexation of Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia, eventually led to their invasion of Poland. In hindsight, this method of appeasement was a mistake, and Hitler’s ideology and the actions of the Nazi party should have been stopped and punished long before an all-out worldwide conflict was initiated. This episode in history demonstrates the extreme complexity and difficulty of knowing when to intervene and when to hold people accountable for their beliefs.

The debate over holding individuals accountable for their beliefs is multifaceted and involves philosophical, cultural, and historical dimensions. Philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes underscored the need for governments to protect against harmful beliefs while acknowledging the role of cultural and social influences. Historical examples like the suppression of the heliocentric model and the rise of Nazi Germany illustrate the challenges and consequences of managing belief systems. Ultimately, individuals should not be held accountable for beliefs alone, but when those beliefs lead to harmful actions, accountability becomes necessary to protect the broader society. This delicate balance between freedom of belief and accountability for actions remains a critical issue in both philosophical discourse and practical governance.