False  beliefs...
                                         ... what's  your  approach?

We can easily understand the idea of false beliefs, even if we do not all agree on which particular ones are false. Some of what people believe just doesn't fit the evidence that is available. But there is more to the issue of beliefs than simply deciding which are right and which are wrong. We might even say that all of what we believe is false in a sense, although it's more accurate to say that how we believe is the problem.

The following is not meant to suggest that there is no absolute truth, although it will probably seem like that to some readers. A tree exists, as do other "things." And even non-thing concepts, such as the relationships among things and people and neurons - love, justice and right and wrong, for example - are real in the sense that these concepts/words point to real interactions - even if they are vaguely defined and endlessly debated.

The problem in our thinking comes when we treat our words as though they are truth, rather than pointers toward truth. This distinction is a subtle one, but important. It may be convenient to say that a statement is true or false, but the truth is outside of the words, not in them. What does this mean? Let's look at a simple example. 

Premise #1: Taking food that belongs to someone without permission is stealing.

Premise #2: Stealing is immoral.

Conclusion: Taking someone's food without his or her permission is immoral.

...suppose a man's daughter is starving, and he wants to do what is morally right. The only way he sees to feed her in time to save her life is to enter a stranger's house and take some food. He believes the premises of the above syllogism, but nonetheless decides to take this food, and he feels this is the correct moral decision. Later he decides that stealing isn't immoral if it's the only way to survive. Essentially, he redefines "immoral" to exclude cases where the stealing is necessary to attain higher moral values (the life of his daughter).

We can see that he looked at reality, made the decision which presented itself as most correct, and then created a moral explanation to fit his action. If he were trapped by the words and definitions he previously accepted, he would have let his daughter die to avoid the "immoral" act. Instead, he changed his beliefs to fit what he saw as the truth, as opposed to what his logic said was true.
 

If we look at the purpose of concepts, the value of this approach becomes much clearer. If, for example, we agree that moral guidelines are meant to serve human life and not the other way around (you don't have to agree, but if you do…), then we see that they have to be adjusted or cast aside when they no longer do that. If any moral principle is meant to serve any purpose other than creating robots of humans, then that purpose is our measure for judging whether to follow that moral rule or not in a given situation.


p/s   Anyway, it's all in our own minds and perspectives...how we see the world  ;-)