More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between religion and morality
Debate on religion and morality
How does religion influence our everyday lives
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Between 1975 and 1979, Pol Pot-the leader of the Khmer Rouge followed Maoist communism, which they thought they could create an agrarian utopia. Agrarian means that the society was based on agriculture. They wanted all members of society to be rural agricultural workers and killed intellectuals, who had been depraved by western capitalist ideas. A utopia means a perfect society. This idea went to extremes when The Khmer Rouge resumed that only pure people were qualified to build the revolution. They killed Cambodians without reasons by uncivilized actions such as: cutting heads, burying alive… There were about 1.7 million people killed by the Khmer Rouge.
Clifford’s claims. Clifford believes that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence, including belief in God (Feinberg 139). Clark’s issue with this statement, is that Clifford emphasises that adequate evidence is necessary for all beliefs and in every circumstance (Feinberg 139). Personally, I do not think it is necessary to hold every belief to the same standard of evidence because of the existence of faith and the fact that not everything has to be seen to exist. In John 20:29 it says, “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (NIV Bible). In this passage, Jesus is saying that believing without the visual evidence is particularly harder than having the evidence, but more importantly, it is possible and blessed. Additionally, in 2 Corinthians 5:7 it reads, “For we live by faith, not by sight” (NIV Bible). It is important to notice that in this verse it does not say that we only live by faith and not by sight when it comes to belief in God, but instead we can in every area of life. One reason why we live by faith and not by sight or complete evidence is because it is more practical because as humans we have limited knowledge about the vastness of the universe and every individual thing. Furthermore, in conjunction with Clark’s example against Clifford, it would not
Ung (2000) mentions that the Cambodian genocide is a product of a perfect agrarian vision that can be built by eliminating Western influence. More specifically, the Angkar perceives peasants and farmers as “model citizens” because many have not left the village and were not subjected to Western influence (Ung 2000:57). Moreover, the Khmer Rouge emphasized the ethnic cleansing of individuals from other races who were not considered “true Khmer” and represented a “source of evil, corruption, [and] poison” (Ung 2000:92). Lastly, the ideology centered on obtaining lost territory was based on a “time when Kampuchea was a large empire with territories” (Ung 2000:78). In essence, Ung successfully demonstrates that multiple causes encouraged the Cambodian
The Cambodian Genocide has the historical context of the Vietnam War and the country’s own civil war. During the Vietnam War, leading up to the conflicts that would contribute to the genocide, Cambodia was used as a U.S. battleground for the Vietnam War. Cambodia would become a battle ground for American troops fighting in Vietnam for four years; the war would kill up to 750,00 Cambodians through U.S. efforts to destroy suspected North Vietnamese supply lines. This devastation would take its toll on the Cambodian peoples’ morale and would later help to contribute that conflicts that caused the Cambodian genocide. In the 1970’s the Khmer rouge guerilla movement would form. The leader of the Khmer rouge, Pol Pot was educated in France and believed in Maoist Communism. These communist ideas would become important foundations for the ideas of the genocide, and which groups would be persecuted. The genocide it’s self, would be based on Pol Pot’s ideas to bring Cambodia back to an agrarian society, starting at the year zero. His main goal was to achieve this, romanticized idea of old Cambodia, based on the ancient Cambodian ruins, with all citizens having agrarian farming lives, and being equal to each other. Due to him wanting society to be equal, and agrarian based, the victims would be those that were educated, intellectuals, professionals, and minority ethnic g...
I agree more with James who argues that it is appropriate to have individual beliefs on non-
Is it ever justified for us to believe in anything on insufficient evidence? William Clifford and Joseph Long have different answers to this question. Clifford thinks that it is always morally wrong because we have a moral obligation to exam our beliefs epistemically. On the contrary, Long argues that there are prudent values to believe something without absolute justification, therefore, it is permissible to do so.
Human beings decide our own uncertainty and fate. In The Will to Believe, James discusses choice and questions genuine choice. He categorizes these choices as ones that are lived, force and the ones he calls “momentous”. For the first option, we have the choice on whether we conceptualize a thought in which we agree with opposed to being against. Second, the option of either being forced to choose something or doing the exact opposite and deny the belief by not choosing at all. Lastly, we have this “momentous” understanding that affects us and can be one occurrence in a lifetime. Based on these selections, we can shape what we believe in. There are different situations that play out when it comes to believing in something. In other words, whether we want to admit it or not, there are many outside factors that influence our own beliefs. James considers the notion that we sometimes look to leaders and people in power and shape our beliefs through them. Also, occasionally when have a choice that can’t be answered logically, we have to make the choice whether it’s ok to believe that is true or not and live with the fact that we may have been wrong. William James states “Do not decide, just like “yes” or “no” and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth” (James WTB 334). The two things that dictate how we form our beliefs are the desire to know it and the
beliefs about whatever we want unless it puts others at risk. Therefore, I don’t think the
In “The Problem with New Data”, an article, Jon Carroll discusses the threat that restricts our beliefs by the information around us. First, he points out that there is a gap that can be hardly recognized between conventional perspectives and realistic elements in our society by using Dr. Hansen’s story. Second, the author states that the news might be controlled and it affects our life without letting us know. Lastly, he suggests that we should rethink about the facts that we believe to be true and should not be dependence on them. In conclusion, Carroll argues that we need to understand that our brain can be controlled by external factors; however, we should be able to avoid it.
Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.
A child is like a sponge that absorbs ideas and beliefs. Beliefs are taught to a child in subtle ways such as just listening to the parents and their opinions from everything including politics, social problems, moral issues and even opinions about how others behave. It is within the family unit that a person learns their moral values. It is from their parents that a child is taught right and wrong. Often this is through religious training. Religious beliefs or the lack of religious beliefs has a great influence on a person's beliefs and values.
A belief is a feeling that an idea is real or true. Beliefs are shared
We Should Believe Without Proof Every human being is different in her or his own way, whether it be their hair color, skin tone, and especially, our opinions and own personal beliefs about the existence of God. Looking at philosopher William James argument, “The Will To Believe,” he believes that there is nothing wrong with believing in God without proof. Philosopher William Clifford’s argument, “The Ethics of Belief,” argues that humans should not believe in God without sufficient proof.
In common speech, a "statement of belief" is typically an expression of faith or trust in a person, power or other entity—while it includes such traditional views, epistemology is also concerned with what we believe. This includes 'the' truth, and everything else we accept as 'true' for ourselves from a cognitive point of view.