Martina James
David Detmer
Philosophy 221
21. March 2017
The Clifford/James Debate In 1877, William Kingdon Clifford wrote his essay “The Ethics of Belief”, in which he famously formulated evidentialism. Here is the question he poses: Is it ever morally permissible to believe a proposition on insufficient evidence, or is it ever okay to let our opinion be influenced by something other than evidence and rational argumentation? He answers the question with a resounding no, and he specifies it as follows, “It is wrong, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Clifford makes his argument by presenting a succession of examples that he deems as sufficient evidence that his claim is right. The following is the …show more content…
James, as many others, believed that Clifford’s theory was too harsh and at the same time too narrow minded. James defended religious faith in particular, but some of the examples he uses in his essay suggest that maybe his views on the ethics of belief go beyond the subject of religion. His main objective is that in some cases it is absolutely permissible to form a belief based on passion and non-rational thinking. To explain this, James introduces a …show more content…
While I agree with Clifford on the importance of collecting evidence before making any choices, I am in agreement with James as well on believing that there are situations where it is impossible to choose on intellectual grounds only. It is impossible for everyone to make choices based on rationale always and everywhere. While it seems simple to make choices based on evidence and not on belief all the time and if that is not possible, then not to make a choice at all, this constant skepticism could very well turn into constant mistrust. It would make people distrustful of each other, making happiness, hope, and passion inferior to skepticism, mistrust, and insecurity, and self-doubt would take the place of courage if nobody would ever take the risk to believe without evidence. Civil rights, human rights, and other causes are worth the risk if they promise improvement for many. On the other hand, if decision-making of the non-rational kind is intruding in fields like science and government, the result can be disastrous (Skeptical Inquirer, 2017). A belief of any kind can be a good thing to follow if the belief is individually held, and is not one promoted by institutions. If I believe in God, then it is not harmful to others. If I believe in God and belong to an institution that promotes persecution of certain groups and asks me to be part of the persecution, and I decide to be part of it, it is
David Detmer
Philosophy 221
21. March 2017
The Clifford/James Debate In 1877, William Kingdon Clifford wrote his essay “The Ethics of Belief”, in which he famously formulated evidentialism. Here is the question he poses: Is it ever morally permissible to believe a proposition on insufficient evidence, or is it ever okay to let our opinion be influenced by something other than evidence and rational argumentation? He answers the question with a resounding no, and he specifies it as follows, “It is wrong, everywhere and for everyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Clifford makes his argument by presenting a succession of examples that he deems as sufficient evidence that his claim is right. The following is the …show more content…
James, as many others, believed that Clifford’s theory was too harsh and at the same time too narrow minded. James defended religious faith in particular, but some of the examples he uses in his essay suggest that maybe his views on the ethics of belief go beyond the subject of religion. His main objective is that in some cases it is absolutely permissible to form a belief based on passion and non-rational thinking. To explain this, James introduces a …show more content…
While I agree with Clifford on the importance of collecting evidence before making any choices, I am in agreement with James as well on believing that there are situations where it is impossible to choose on intellectual grounds only. It is impossible for everyone to make choices based on rationale always and everywhere. While it seems simple to make choices based on evidence and not on belief all the time and if that is not possible, then not to make a choice at all, this constant skepticism could very well turn into constant mistrust. It would make people distrustful of each other, making happiness, hope, and passion inferior to skepticism, mistrust, and insecurity, and self-doubt would take the place of courage if nobody would ever take the risk to believe without evidence. Civil rights, human rights, and other causes are worth the risk if they promise improvement for many. On the other hand, if decision-making of the non-rational kind is intruding in fields like science and government, the result can be disastrous (Skeptical Inquirer, 2017). A belief of any kind can be a good thing to follow if the belief is individually held, and is not one promoted by institutions. If I believe in God, then it is not harmful to others. If I believe in God and belong to an institution that promotes persecution of certain groups and asks me to be part of the persecution, and I decide to be part of it, it is