Wk Clifford The Ethics Of Belief Analysis

What if every belief you had, no matter how small it seems, can cause harm to others and corrupt the society, if your reasoning for holding that belief is not backed by sufficient evidence? This is what philosopher W. K. Clifford argues in, The Ethics of Belief. Clifford believes it is always wrong to believe in something with insufficient evidence. A belief with insufficient evidence is a principle that does not have indisputable or reasonable confirmation that prove it be true. His reasoning is, if one believes something with insufficient evidence, it can harm and corrupt others. If one harms or corrupts another, then they are doing something wrong. One believes something without insufficient evidence, therefore they are doing something wrong.

And it is a leading reason to why we still have issues like racism, homophobia, and sexism. But to say we must stop believing in all things with insufficient evidence can do more harm than good. Which, I do not believe this is what Clifford intended to do with his argument. Having strong beliefs in something without sufficient evidence can harm other or it can make a scientific, creative, or personal breakthrough that can advance society in a positive way. If you think in terms of the creation of medicines throughout history or any medical discoveries, like anesthesia, it had to be tested before being distributed to others. In the final stages of testing, anesthesia had to be experimented on people. Without sufficient evidence saying, anesthesia will definitely work, these tests could have killed someone. But scientists have strong beliefs in their medical discoveries that someday, they will work and improve the society. If scientist feared the possibility of harming someone we would not have many advancements today. Now, we have drugs like general anesthesia to make lengthy and invasive surgeries bearable. If Clifford stands firmly with his belief, he would say a firm belief without

It should go without saying that harming another is wrong. But sometimes it can be a necessary evil that can lead to a better outcome. A choice you make without sufficient evidence can directly harm another but the same choice can save a larger group of people. In class, we discussed the ethics of euthanasia. Euthanasia is painlessly ending another's life who is suffering. It is illegal in many states and countries. And it is overall a practice that is condoned. But some doctors strongly believe euthanasia is ethical in certain scenarios, even though the fact and values don't support them. Doctors must make tough decisions on who to save. When they make their choice, it is not clear or supported on what is the right decision. But doctors make a choice that saves a greater scale of people but, may directly harm one or a few. One of the examples in class we discussed was the case of Jannie Burgess who was given a lethal dose of morphine without her knowledge. The choice was made by her doctor, Dr. Ewing Cook, who believed she would not survive an evacuation and they needed the resources spent on Burgess, for others. There was no way of proving Dr. Cook’s belief at that moment but he made a decision that possibly led to the survival of more patients and civilians. To say that it is always wrong to harm another person is mistaken because if directly hurting one can then save a significantly