Humans aren't just not perfect Bayesians. Very very few of us are even Bayesian wannabes. In essence, everyone who thinks that it is more moral/ethical to hold some proposition than to hold it's converse is taking some criterion other than appearent truth as normative with respect to the evaluation of beliefs.
'taking apparent truth as normative', so I'd call it the only position of that format that is Bayesian.
*Quotes from michael_vassar and Robert Miles on "Knowing About Biases Can Hurt People" — LessWrong
my questions:
would you prefer to agree with the peers in the same room or to present an opposing view?
do you think it's more ethical to support actions of your country than to criticise them?
what's more moral to you - to follow your religion or to question its dogmas?
do you think it's more respectful to agree with your parent/mentor/professor than to ask epistemically "uncomfortable" questions?