The Ethics Of Belief By William James

Given that our will plays a role in determining our belief, James argues if we should embrace this as a fact of psychological life, or struggle against it.

In life, there is a constant battle ensuing over faith and reason. Those two things are constantly feeding off of each other in someone’s mind when making a decision. Over time in which some say is a great conversation about history this battle is changing. The Great Conversation of history spans over many eras where the questions of faith and reason are always things battling for a spot in our minds, but they shouldn’t be in battle because they are very much dependent on the other. Among the time periods from Ancient Greece, the Enlightenment, and the 19th century, writers such as Socrates, Kant, and Martin Luther King Jr have looked at the issue of faith and reason.

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

Faith, defined as a strong belief in something which cannot be proven, has been argued over countless generations. Still, even without proof, individuals worldwide hold true to their faith each day. After studying faith and religion in texts written by scholars with varying backgrounds, it is easy to see faith is something which is widely disputed. Comparison of Sigmund Freud’s The Future of an Illusion and Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, fully displays the discrepancies in points of view on the function of faith, as well as the necessity of faith, in society; while the comparison of Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Karl Marx’s “on the Future of Religion,” demonstrate both similarities and differences

William James (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without sufficient evidence. James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs: either beliefs are 1) living or dead; 2) forced or avoidable; or 3) momentous or trivial.

William James was an American psychiatrist and philosopher, born in 1842 and touted as the leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism and of the psychological movement of functionalism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). James’ rebuttal to the Clifford’s Ethics of Believe, was the famed Will to Believe.

In the report, The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel was the main focus of study and discussion on the strongest objections of Christianity, additionally, the book following Lee Strobel as he sought answers intentionally to disprove Christianity. However, there were circumstances which led to him proving the case as to why faith in God is justified. Accordingly, the main task of this report provided answers to the theological objections proposed in the book. Given these points, a conclusion arose on the contents of the book disputing whether the information in the book is valid, as the overall opinions on the book were confirmed.

William James was an American philosopher and psychologist who specialized in Pragmatism and philosophy related to such. He led a philosophical revolution in the USA and would make the philosophy known as ¨Pragmatism" very well known. In his book ¨The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy", William explains different philosophical beliefs while also challenging them and supporting the right to believe in a religion or even life itself. William James' style of writing is more Expository mainly due to his explanation of different philosophies/religions but showing pros and cons of many different philosophies.

This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.

Williams James’s speech The Will to Believe was so intriguing because he presents his case in a way that makes you able to apply his idea in your own life. William James the Harvard professor of physiology, psychology and philosophy was beloved by all his students. He filled the room when he spoke and even those who did not agree with his theories loved to listen to his speeches. William James dedicated 35 years of his life teaching and bringing his theories to life in his speeches and his books. James uses his personnel struggles with depression in his theories making them about how they can help people in everyday life. James use of language and images in his writing and his speeches made people feel involved. William James often changed

As we know many people have a stance on religion just like WK Clifford who has a very strong view about religion, but some do not agree. William James for examples thinks that, Clifford’s principles should be not to be applied to religious beliefs because as he points out moral questions cannot simply be settled by the facts. James argues that we have a right to believe in some cases, when supporting evidence may be lacking. James sees the basic idea of religion as having two parts that the best things are the eternal things, and that you will be better off in the here and now if you believe this. An example of something we almost all believe in without sufficient evidence, is the emotions we feel often every day. The many emotions we feel everyday such as happiness, anger, or even sympathy are very often morally relevant to us. Emotions are not settled by facts we just feel them and for sometimes no reason at all. Like

Within the philosophical aspect of belief, credulity is needed for evidence backing a hypothesis, formulating a theory to be accepted scientifically. Perhaps evidence based reasoning is necessary in terms of laws that are broken and to convict the ship-owner. Clifford and James agree in such cases. But “belief” also plays closely with trust, the human capital that allows society to be possible. Trust allows for the most basic economic transactions to occur. Post September eleven, billions of dollars and productive hours have been squandered revamping national security because we cannot trust each other. Clifford undermines human responsibility by using belief in the wrong sense, creating a categorical error. In a moral relational situation where trust-worthiness and responsibility are required, Clifford uses a category of knowledge. It is wrong that he associates faith, a source of morality, with an immoral act. Trust, being a type of social capital, is mostly unconscious. I believe when William James presents his three kinds of decisions living, forced, and momentous, he is also getting at the fact that trust is the social capital that makes life, love, and even thought

This concept differs from James’ characterization of belief. James is a Relativist; therefore, he believes that we will never really know the “truth”. James believes that each individual should think for themselves and do whatever they personally think is right. He believes that religion is something that is a live, forced, and momentous option. Religion is something that will require a leap of faith, but the knowledge process allows for this. James suggests that one should take a leap of faith and then wait and see what happens next and then reevaluate. In the end if everyone does this our quality of life will generally improve and as a group everyone will tend to move toward the

People have been always interested to know the circumstances under which it is necessary to believe. Believing on facts or not depend by the person. In this paper I look to demonstrate if Is it wrong to hold a belief on insufficient evidence or is it morally right to believe based on the sufficient evidence. In this paper I aim to discuss the other philosopher in contrast with Clifford. My issue is to show what mean to believe and how important is that in our lives. How necessary are the evidence that we have to know for believing on something?

Faith and reason were two modes of belief that dominated the history of Western Civilization. Both faith and reason were popularized as tools to understand the universe in Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian eras. By conflicting with each other, these two modes of belief sparked a lot of controversy. Reason or rationality is belief based on concrete evidence and logic. The development of one’s reason relies heavily on observation and questioning. Greco-Roman philosophers believed in the power of the human mind to understand the world. So in order to find ultimate truth, Greco-Roman philosophers dedicated their lives to perfecting their reasoning skills and encouraged those around them to do the same. Contradictory to reason, faith is the