More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethics of belief clifford essay
“the ethics of belief” (essay) – W.K. Clifford
Ethics of belief clifford summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The ethics of belief clifford essay
William K. Clifford’s ‘Ethics of Belief’ (1877) challenges the way that people obtain their beliefs. He goes over the story of a ship-owner that was going to send to sea, even though his ship was in bad condition. The ship-owner dismissed the concerns and suspicions of contractors because he sincerely believed that the ship could make it across the sea. He sent the ship, and the ship sunk mid-ocean and the ship-owner received an insurance payment from the ship. Clifford argues that the ship-owner should be guilty of this act, given that he didn’t have sufficient evidence to conclude that the ship was fit to go out to sea. He goes further to argue that beliefs without sufficient evidence is “sinful and immoral” and overall hurts the society
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.
The concept of belief perseverance (Myers, 82) can be found in the film, “12 Angry Men”. Throughout the film, the jury members discuss the verdict of a young, Mexican boy. It is essential to note that all twelve men serving on the jury are Caucasian. Somewhat because of the boy’s ethnicity, many of the jurors are initially in support of submitting a guilty verdict. This is made clear in the film when Juror #10 verbalizes what he ‘thinks’ is the opinion of the group; “Now, look - we're all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life - you can't believe a word they say, you know that. I mean
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
Sum Law (the sum of the interior angles of a triangle must sum to 180
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
Faith is an essential part of developing a worldview, however, too much faith may prevent individuals from seeing the world realistically. In Miguel De Cervantes’ book “Don Quijote,” the main character, Don Quijote, takes faith and literally makes it the deciding factor in how he sees the world. Because of the power Don Quijote gives his faith, it misleads him, and he makes poor decisions. For example; he injures himself fighting imaginary giants and hurts others to fulfill his imaginary role as a knight errant. Don Quijote takes faith from its rightful place by allowing it to extremely distort how he literally sees the world.
Everyone has some kind of doubt about morality. When we make a moral judgement we believe this has to have some objective background to make it true and Mackie argues that this is false. Basically, when we are making a claim we are in error which is why his theory is called the “error theory”. (Class notes, pg.16)Mackie believes that there are two important arguments to prove to you that there is no such thing as ethical objectivism.
In “What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics” Sharon Street claims every individual has the ability to decide what is valuable to them and what is not valuable. She also claims that a single desire can be irrational and at the same time can not be intrinsically irrational. I will argue against this in my paper. In Section 1 I will explain Street’s point of view, and in Section 2 I will object her view.
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
The Justified True Belief (JTB) theory of knowledge, often attributed to Plato , is a fairly straightforward theory of knowledge. It states that something must be true if person S believes proposition P, proposition P is true, and S is justified in believing in believing that P is true . While many consider the JTB theory to be vital to the understanding of knowledge, some, such as American Philosopher Edmund Gettier, believe that it is flawed. I tend to agree with Gettier and others who object to the JTB theory as an adequate theory of knowledge, as the JTB theory allows for a type of implied confirmation bias that can lead people to be justified in believing they know something even though it isn’t true.
Every day we are confronted with questions of right and wrong. These questions can appear to be very simple (Is it always wrong to lie?), as well as very complicated (Is it ever right to go to war?). Ethics is the study of those questions and suggests various ways we might solve them. Here we will look at three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems; we will also see that each theory has its own difficulties. Ethics can offer a great deal of insight into the issues of right and wrong; however, we will also discover that ethics generally won’t provide a simple solution on which everyone can agree (Mosser, 2013).
Clifford says, “Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handed on to the next one...”(2) It is the duty of the adult to see to it the child does not believe in trivial matters with no proof of existence. Those who would carry on these commonplace ideas of fabricated figures, hinder society by passing it down from generation to generation. To do so gives in to the possibility of breeding more belief without proof in other matters. In turn this will lead to fool hearty