This is a very important topic both because aspects of it come up on the forum from time to time and because it plays a large role in the world, particularly around issues of free speech. There is an alarming trend among university students to try to ban anyone who has a differing opinion, often claiming it violates their "safe space." Or, especially, the idea of respect is used to buttress religion when it's truth claims are questioned and, in far too many countries, this is enshrined in blasphemy laws.
Those defences are often there because questioning can hurt. As it stated there:
The black and white lines that so many depend on quickly blur to grey. For some it's easy to say, "Don't question their belief, it's doing no harm." Which can be true! But, then, when someone's belief is doing harm, such as gay conversion therapy following from someone's religious beliefs, we have a problem. There is no philosophical difference between criticising the one set of beliefs and criticising the other. Furthermore, even if we cannot see harm, it does not mean there is. Holding untrue beliefs, however innocuous, can make it easier to accept more insidious untruths.More plausible is the principle that people's beliefs be treated with respect in the sense that they should not be ridiculed, scorned or insulted. Here the constraint is only on the manner in which they are criticized. But although the principle sounds reasonable, it is surprisingly difficult to defend as a general rule. To be sure, we may agree that we should not cause anyone unnecessary pain; and insulting someone's cherished beliefs may do this. But sometimes the pain caused is not gratuitous but an unavoidable consequence of something that really needs to be said. /.../ Moreover, rhetorical freedom is an important aspect of the right to free speech. Very often, the critique of a belief is more powerful and more persuasive because of the way ridicule, irony, sarcasm, and wit are employed. Think of the contributions to important debates made by the likes of Swift, Voltaire, Hume, Paine, Nietzsche, or Mencken.
There is a teacher of critical thinking at UCT who once wrote something on the same topic that always stuck with me.
There's a certain irony to it all, at least in my mind. It almost seems that letting everyone have their cherished beliefs is a rather belittling way to act. It implies that those beliefs are meaningless and can be discarded, whereas to challenge them recognises that they are important and have value.Alternately, what we often see is a relativistic reluctance to be critical at all, where we weasel our way through life saying things like “everyone is entitled to their opinion” – without remembering that opinions help shape actions, and that we should therefore care deeply about our opinions, and those of others.
