Analysis Of The Ethics Of Belief By William K. Clifford Vs. James

Clifford Vs James
In the “Ethics of Belief”, William K. Clifford presents us with an example. The example tells us why we always need sufficient evidence to believe something. He says that no one should believe something from a gut feeling or something we just think is true without any evidence of that it proves that it is right. We think of this as if it were a joke because it may not affect us now, but if everyone begins to follow this it will be a big difference from the way we think now. Also, we wouldn’t need sufficient evidence in every case to believe something. We wouldn’t sit there and take hours on looking for evidence on something we want to be true. In contrast with him is James’s theory; he thinks it is impossible for everyone to think that way and for that to ever happen. He gives examples on situations where you don’t need sufficient evidence believing will cause the belief to become true. However, I will argue that …show more content…
This person encourages many others to use the same remedy, and it doesn’t work on those people as it did on the ones before. The people would be very angry and think they were lying and would want to do something since they harmed their face and hair. The family and the first person made the mistake of believing in some remedy without evidence such as tests on a variety of people not only family members. I think this is a similar example as Clifford’s and goes to many others as well. People don’t really realize the importance of sufficient evidence. It will also be very good because you will not be making any moral mistakes. You won’t feel one drop of guilt not being one hundred percent sure that you’re correct. But, once you have the evidence and have all the proof you need you’ll be