Summary
The topic “The Ethics of Belief” by W.K Clifford has presented a significant argument regarding people’s beliefs. The author argues that when an individual does an action, it remains right or wrong forever. None of its consequences will alter this notion (Rosen et al. 87). The question of wrong or right, however, is connected to the origin of one’s beliefs and how he got them regardless of whether what they believed later turned out to be true or false. Clifford argues that one’s beliefs are based on the availability of evidence or the facts that have been presented before the intended recipient. Giving an example of a shipowner, the author argues that the owner could believe their vehicle was sound. However, his beliefs can change when people present evidence of it being unseaworthy. It is wrong, however, to base one’s beliefs on insufficient evidence. People should only hold beliefs, even when they were taught of the same from a young age, only when they have the authority to believe they are true or there is sufficient evidence to support them.
The submissions by William James in his article “The Will to Believe” are partly related to Clifford’s argument. James’s position is that there are two kinds of hypotheses: the ones that appeal as real possibilities, a live hypothesis, and a dead hypothesis that will not appeal to the person it is being proposed to (Rosen et al. 99). A notion that does not make any electric connection to a person’s nature and what they believe in is considered dead as it does not scintillate with any credibility. However, the same notion can appeal to someone else’s nature since they were introduced to such a belief in childhood. A person’s beliefs or connection with certain notions is also determined by their will to believe. When asked to think about God’s existence and is willing to do so, such a person is wpersonsonvinced about this belief. However, the same cannot be said for a person who is not ready to believe in the existence of God or other supernatural powers. William holds the same position as Clifford and states that when a belief is accepted based on insufficient evidence (regardless of whether it is true or not), the generated pleasure will be stolen.
Analysis
From Clifford’s article, his argument’s primary thesis or theme is that it is wrong and immoral for a person to believe anything based on insufficient evidence. This implies that Clifford calls upon people to question or inquire about the credibility of any fact or aspect and understand the basis for such a notion before making it part of their lives. In other words, regardless of how sincere some beliefs are, holding them yet they are not grounded on any available evidence can lead to harm to others (Marten et al. 6). Clifford gives an example of a shipowner who believes that his ship is sound and can be deployed into the sea for transportation. However, the shipowner did not have sufficient evidence or investigation to support his claims. Nevertheless, he held onto the beliefs, deployed the ship into the business, and led to the death of several people. This case illustrated a person motivated by profits and disregard for people’s lives. Clifford discourages such conduct as he considers it immoral and based on misleading beliefs. However, having beliefs is not unethical; what is considered wrong is harboring beliefs that pose a risk to other members of society.
Therefore, people must investigate whether their beliefs are justified, as this helps to differentiate between rational actions and one’s faith. This leads to Clifford’s other argument on irrational beliefs, degradation, and self-deception. The author argues that engaging in irrational beliefs will harm others and self-deception and degradation of a person’s moral standings. To avoid such degradation, people must destroy superstitions created by beliefs based on insufficient evidence. Clifford argues that cases of fatal superstition arise when beliefs are accepted without regard to the available evidence. Such destructive superstition will likely maintain beliefs that destroy and tear apart societies. This implies that religious differences and conflicts witnessed worldwide have been kept alive by beliefs based on insufficient data and evidence. As such, Clifford advises people to shun beliefs unsupported by adequate evidence as they weaken their character and powers of fairly weighing evidence, doubting and questioning, and self-control.
William James begins his argument with Clifford that beliefs should be centered on sufficient evidence. However, the author’s primary aim or argument was to support the non-evidentialist theory on beliefs. He argues against Clifford and states that there are cases where people can hold beliefs even when they do not have sufficient evidence to support them. His submission can be considered logical if Clifford’s argument on “the weight of authority” is something to go by. Like Clifford, who questioned whether there are instances where one will have to hold beliefs regardless of the amount of evidence available, James introduces several arguments that shape how people evaluate the available data.
James argues that two stances can be adopted when considering beliefs: avoiding errors at all costs, even if one will miss out on the truth, and seeking the truth, even if it will entail committing or risking mistakes. The author implies that despite insufficient evidence, one can avoid errors that harm oneself or others and adopt certain beliefs. This means that when one fails to accept a belief for fear of insufficient evidence, they might miss an ample opportunity or lose out on a critical mission. Similarly, one can decide to pursue a mission with the available evidence as they seek the truth instead of avoiding it altogether and end up losing lifetime opportunities. James’ argument thus embodies seeking the truth with insufficient evidence, as this can lead the person to better opportunities or information.
Evaluation
The essay by Clifford has been a moral and epistemological rejection of subjectivism, the philosophical concept that argues that truth and knowledge are limited to self-experience. The author presents an essential and credible argument that all beliefs not based on sufficient evidence should be rejected. This argument helps to keep society in check and ensure that no religious or other leaders can use their positions and the knowledge they possess to manipulate and mislead others (Irwin et al. 49). The author has discredited subjectivism and instead supported the verification of facts and evidence by other members of the society to prevent harm to oneself and others. For example, subjectivism has helped people who claim to have received a divine calling to initiate their missions, which are later found to be cults or misleading sects, which is a harmful aspect that Clifford rejects. By arguing in support of evidence and objectivism, Clifford promotes a notion that has been used in science and other sectors as it ensures verification of facts before they are accepted. Objectivism is a philosophical approach that argues that the truth can only be gained via objective verification like mathematical or scientific proofs. Therefore, as Clifford asserts, the formation of beliefs should be grounded on the evidence that supports and verifies it.
Although Clifford favors objectivism in his argument, he presents his claims entirely on subjective notions. This raises the question of how the audience or readers of his essay can then support and trust his argument. People cannot lead their lives based on objectivist ethics, yet the argument they are to rely on has been presented based on subjectivism. The author needed to offer more proof or evidence of his beliefs, making it difficult for the audience to accept them. Accepting his beliefs as valid will be immoral, as he has stated, given that the arguments are not based on sufficient evidence. With a lack of verification, critics have argued that Clifford is acting immorally when he claims his position represents the truth. As such, if one is to follow Clifford’s arguments on ethical standards, one will have to reject the foundations of his writing for lack of proof.
The article Will to Believe by William James has outlined how, in most cases, people are either born or learn some beliefs when they are too young to understand. This supports the argument that people are not at fault for believing in what they think since they either inherited the beliefs or acquired them unconsciously. When one has been forced to choose something, they cannot be blamed for their beliefs; instead, the consequences of their actions can be questioned. However, the person subjecting the individual to certain beliefs can either give them an alternative or leave them without one. James states that when one gives the other two rational options, they allow them to make the best choice for themselves (James 2). This is the same with pursuing the truth regardless of the risks involved or waiting for more evidence and missing out on potential benefits.
Even though James provides an essential argument on beliefs that can help people avoid risks or pursue the truth and gain potential benefits, his submission has several weaknesses. For example, people who have followed the truth with total disregard for the risks involved have led to harm to others. An example is the shipowner discussed by William Clifford, who, despite being aware that his ship was not seaworthy, risked the lives of other people, which led to their deaths. This means that even in pursuance of the truth, there are instances where one must engage reasoning to avoid loss of lives or other negative consequences. Furthermore, James ignores moral obligations, as people are expected to be responsible for themselves and others. When pursuing the truth, one must consider the consequences to others, not just themselves.
Position
Clifford and James argue and support their positions, stating that believing is not morally permissible unless a person possesses sufficient evidence. On the other hand, James points out that certain conditions make it ethically acceptable to believe propositions even under insufficient evidence. My position on the two is that I support Clifford’s argument since the presence of evidence and proof makes an idea more believable than when there is nothing to prove the existence of something. James supports his ideas with religious propositions such as God’s existence, yet this subject has continued to be debated in theology and philosophy.
Several authors have even assigned the probability of God’s existence below 0.5, with 1 being the certainty of this existence and 0 being the probability of the same (Peterson and VanArragon 4). Considering that the existence or nonexistence of God is what defines religion and religious prepositions and James’s argument, it is ideal to state that such notions cannot be used to support the use of subjectivism in beliefs. This means that the discussion by Clifford is more foundational than that presented by James, and this informs my position on this aspect of beliefs. At the same time, some circumstances are too risky for an individual to get involved without evidence.
For example, the case of risking the lives of others for profit is morally wrong in any business; evidence and research are required to understand the circumstances before embarking on a particular mission or investing in certain products. Such cases will require more than just fate and uncertainty since it is considered immoral to harm others. Following Clifford’s evidentialist principle that it is wrong for anyone to believe in anything without sufficient evidence, the integrated evidentialist rule was coined. The rule states that for a subject to believe in a proposition, they must have enough proof that whatever they believe in is accurate and that any doubts raised have been investigated.
Several objections can be put forward against my position above, one of them being that the relevant evidence needs to be sufficient and clarified. t is also unclear whether the said evidence refers to components positively related to the truth or elements believers consider to be positively associated with the truth. To address this objection, it is worth noting that sufficient evidence is based on what the society finds adequate facts to prove a point or belief. For instance, it is widely accepted that people should not stereotype or mistreat others based on race (Basu 10). here is adequate evidence of what constitutes racism, and people are expected to avoid any remarks or beliefs that condone racism in their workplaces, schools, or elsewhere. Another objection is that there are cases of perceptual beliefs that require one’s experience and knowledge of the world. Uch beliefs do not require evidence to prove why someone believes in them since they are universal. For example, when people think the grass is green, they do not need proof since this is common knowledge. However, such beliefs depend on the perceptions of everyone else. For a person to acquire these beliefs and perceptions, they must be guided by others and shown evidence of the environmental elements like grass.
Conclusion
The paper summarizes, analyzes, and evaluates the articles written by W.K. Clifford and William James. The two authors presented two disputing arguments relying on evidence to inform one’s beliefs. Clifford argued that people must have sufficient evidence before undertaking any activities, as this helps to indicate whether their actions are morally right or wrong. On the other hand, James argued that a person can pursue the truth even when they do not have sufficient evidence. However, this adventure is risky since they are unaware of the uncertainties. James considers seeking the truth a better option than avoiding risks and missing out on potential benefits. I took the position of Clifford as I think the presence of evidence is critical to prevent self-harm and harming others as one is pursuing profits or benefits. However, there are objections to this position since the required evidence has never been clarified. However, the available proof and evidence in society can be considered enough to determine whether some actions are morally right or wrong.
Works Cited
Basu, Rima. The wrongs of racist beliefs.” Philosophical Studies 176.9 (2019): 1–19.
Rosen, Gideon, Byrne, Alex, Cohen, Joshua, Harman, Elizabeth, and Shiffrin, Seana. He Norton Introduction to Philosophy. Nd ed. W. Norton B & Company, Inc. 2018.
Irwin, Harvey J., Neil Dagnall, and Kenneth Graham Drinkwater. The Ethics of Belief in Paranormal Phenomena.” Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition 2.1 (2022): 49–79.
James, W. (2020). he will to believe. n Arguing About Knowledge (pp. 1–14). outledge.
Marten, Scheffer, et al. “Belief traps: Tackling the inertia of harmful beliefs.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 119.32 (2022), 1–10.
Peterson, Michael L., and Raymond J. VanArragon, eds. Contemporary debates in philosophy of religion. Ohn Wiley & Sons, 2020.
write