Ethics Of Belief Analysis

1001 Words3 Pages

Beliefs are imprinted in our consciousness that alters our perceptions, attitudes and how we react towards situations and moments of decisions, they perceive our realities. Everyone has a different imprints and perceive their beliefs from their personal experiences. Beliefs dictate how we react to life. Our beliefs can be altered and changed throughout the course of our lifetime
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
Ship out to sea – had doubts but sent it out anyways (avoided error). James belief would react differently following the method of knowing the truth- which could have drove to the decision of either (passionate about either the welfare of the passengers or the destination of the cargo) depending on ones individual ethic. Despite the doubts of the boats safety- ship owner muted the ideas with past events of successful trips-on insufficient evidence. The authority of the mechanic over the authority of communal rumors.
What Clifford is describing is merely a judgment that comes from evaluating evidence to produce a decision.
Clifford’s arguments for this conclusion is that if we are gullible enough to believe something without evidence then we are not only harming our individual credibility and intellect but also polluting the rest of society...

... middle of paper ...

... to eliminate any Western influences in order to create a utopian society, killed off million of influential scholars, philosophers and any educated people in the country. These Cambodians believed that this would benefit the rest of the country and would create a utopian for the future generations of Cambodians. Even though this was morally and ethically wrong to them it was right. So who is to say who was right or wrong if it is based off their beliefs?
Duty to believe whether it be our responsibility the weigh the pros and cons of our beliefs based off evidence or our passionate faith that we believe something to be true. We have a responsibility as an individual to believe something. While I stand by James’ argument over Clifford, I believe that everyone has a right to believe differently if that is what they perceive to be morally andor ethically correct.

Open Document