Our belief states are determined by the external factors, for example, perceived complexity and priming ethics is an interesting subject and everyone lives by their thoughts and their ways. Everyone lives by a different code. The difference between morality and ethics is that morality is about primary making the right choices and ethics is proper reasoning. In the essay “The ethics of belief” by W. K. Clifford, he argues that if anything on insufficient evidence, then it’s unethical. In this essay I will remain undecided with what Clifford is trying to say. I agree and disagree with some of his viewpoints. Some I do have to say are unethical and some are reasonable. What Clifford is trying to portray is interesting. Especially since he comes from a religious background. And reading about his new discovery, is quite interesting.
I will start off by agreeing with Clifford that we should have sufficient evidence before making an assumption. But I don’t believe that just because we don’t have sufficient evidence it’s automatically wrong. I think that we have to look at the foundations first. And we have to look at the foundations that we know and if they’re where some reasons to doubt, then I will have to doubt the principles. And I think that knowledge does not depend upon things of whose existence I don’t have knowledge yet. So how can we say that if there isn’t enough evidence to support a claim, why is it considered wrong? I find it illogical because just because there still isn’t enough evidence, doesn’t mean its wrong, its just not considered right or wrong. We don’t have enough proof to make it erroneous. And we can’t assume anything until there are enough indications to make it otherwise.
In the essay “The ethics of belief” ...

... middle of paper ...

... their idea of right and wrong is just an opinion. And opinions are dismissal. Just because Clifford doesn’t have any faith, doesn’t mean that he has to tell everyone to not make any decisions without concrete and sufficient evidence. The reason is because people shouldn’t lie to themselves. The man who lies to himself doesn’t understand himself.
I think that Clifford did make a mistake in saying that anything without sufficient evidence is considered wrong. As a reasonable person we have the capacity to decide which of our desires, if any, we will act on. I do approve that we do have to have evidence to believe in something, but I don’t agree that if we don’t have enough evidence then it’s wrong. We can’t say that without having sufficient proof that, that statement is false. And everything depends on what you believe, because what you believe is what you hear.
Get Access