William Clifford Ethics Of Belief Analysis

According to William Clifford in the "Ethics of Belief," he argued that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (Ethics of Belief, p.5) To further support his argument, he applied the example of the ship owner. In the ship owner case, the owner who noticed that his ship has been getting old and rusty still decided to go ahead and let it sailed out with all the emigrants on board. He chose to go against his beliefs and doubts and entrusted it to Providence. And just as he had predicted, as the ship wasn’t in good shape, to begin with, it ended up sinking, and numerous have lost their lives. To Clifford, the fact that the owner neglected his duties and responsibilities out of his self-interest and leaving his faith into the care of God should be the one to blame. Clifford wanted to underline the fact that regardless of what …show more content…
In opposition to Clifford’s claim that having faith in things that are without substantial proof would always lead to unhappy consequences. I, however, do not believe that it would be the same matters for all situations. For example, God, who is regarded as an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being that guides all humans on how they should live their lives to their utmost potential and happiness, remains as something that is without substantial proof. Even so, many would still choose to believe in him. I think that their reasons to decide on having their faiths in God is not because they are seeking to validate his existence, but it is to allow them to have hope. Those hopes that they are hanging on are like rays of lights that are acting as a guide, leading them out of the dark tunnels in their lives, giving them the courage to continue to live. Hence, to believe in things that are lacking in substantial proof does not always mean catastrophe and disaster. It can also be regarded as a source of bravery or a mentor in one’s life, as