William Clifford The Ethics Of Belief Analysis

In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument on the ethics of belief, followed by a summary of William James’ (1897) argument on the right to believe, and finally, provide an argument for why W.K Clifford’s (1879) argument is stronger by highlighting its strengths while simultaneously arguing against William James’ (1897) argument.

In William K. Clifford’s, “The Ethics of Belief (II),” he argues that humans must always question their conceptions and beliefs.

In his article “The Ethics of Belief (Clifford, 1877) W.K. Clifford sought to argue that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (as cited on p190). The aim of this essay is to establish whether indeed this view offered by Clifford, when considering religious faith, is convincing. In order to do this I will consider the arguments that Clifford put forward, including that which to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence always does harm and so is wrong. Such a statement is in direct opposition to those religious believers who regard their blind faith as a virtue and for whom evidence is something that is

What is Evidentialism? “As evidentialism is a thesis about epistemic justification, it is a thesis about what it takes for one to believe justifiably, or reasonably, in the sense thought to be necessary for knowledge” (Mittag). Now what does that mean in order for someone to believe in something, they must see the real proof have hardcore evidence. One famous argument about evidentialism is by William Kingdon Clifford, (born May 4, 1845, Exeter, Devon, England—died March 3, 1879, Madeira Islands, Portugal) British philosopher and mathematician. Although he was most famous for his work as a mathematician, Clifford also wrote, “The locus classicus for the ethics of belief debate is, unsurprisingly, the essay that christened it. “The Ethics of Belief” was published, in a journal called Contemporary Review.”(Chingell)

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.

In Clifford’s universal demand for evidence he states that you base all of your beliefs on evidence (138). Clark utilizes this premise to restate the argument in which he will eventually will give reasoning to why the claim is false. In the article he foreshadows the problem with Clifford’s demand for evidence by saying, “ No one would disagree: some beliefs require evidence for their rational acceptability. But all beliefs in every circumstance?”(139) Clark is somewhat supporting the demand for evidence. However, he does not find it rational to believe that evidence is required in every situation.

William Kingdon Clifford’s argument in “The Ethics of Belief” that it is morally wrong to form beliefs upon insufficient evidence has been widely debated. One such objection to Clifford is William James’s “The Will to Believe,” which argues, under certain circumstances, it can be morally justified to form beliefs without adequate evidence. In this paper, I shall argue that James’s position on belief is stronger than Clifford’s on the basis of being able to reveal more truths while not violating morality.

The Titanic was a ship that sunk during its maiden voyage in 1912. This big ship was on it’s way to New York when it struck an iceberg. It was believed to be “unsinkable” but that night it met it’s fate and sunk killing many passengers. As the story goes they say it’s the icebergs fault for the sinking of the ship. When in reality, the White Star Line was truly at fault for the sinking of the Titanic. They are responsible for this tragedy because they went full speed after ignoring six ice warnings. Not only that but they should've thought of the consequences when they decided to take off lifeboats for more room for luxury items. Then they weren’t prepared and never had any drills or safety procedures for if the ship were to sink.

In W.K Clifford’s Essay he states that “It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” This argument is not totally wrong but does have some problems to it. In Clifford’s essay he explains a scenario with a ship owner and someone who he will be sending out to the sea. The ship owner does no believe the ship to be good enough, ready enough or in other words sea worthy to be sent out to the sea. Instead of checking the ship to see if it is ready to be sent out to the sea because it Is time consuming, he decides to send the ship out anyway. In the end, the ship ends up sinking in which case, Clifford considers to owner to be guilty of the ship sinking because he should have believed that ship

You’ve heard of the Titanic’s sinking, right? Well, do you know who is exactly is responsible though? The captain of the R.M.S. Titanic is to blame, which was Captain Edward J. Smith and he was a popular leader. He had a total of 38 years of working with the White Star Line, the company that owned the Titanic. Captain Smith should have had full control of the ship and obviously, that night, he did not. Therefore, Captain Smith is the the person to blame for the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic because he cancelled a lifeboat drill on the Titanic, he allowed lifeboats to leave partially full and not at the correct time, and lastly, he ignored seven different iceberg warnings.

However, the people who know about the sinking of the ship, do they really know why they

Why did the Titanic sink? Who’s to blame for this imprint on the timeline of humanity? How could the guilty let this happen? All of these questions could be answered with one man, Captain Edward J. Smith. As Ballard’s Exploring the Titanic says, “(Captain Smith) was a natural leader and was popular with both crew and passengers… thirty-eight years’ service with the White Star Line… had an excellent safety record.” This seems like the guy you would want to captain a great ship like the Titanic, and at first he was. But, as the ship’s voyage progressed he started to forget his duties and take this trip as some getaway time for himself to enjoy. This idea of his endorsed his mind until he only visited the bridge every couple hours. When the iceberg

The infamous accident on the voyage across the Atlantic left the Titanic in ruins and hundreds of people dead. After hitting an iceberg, the great vessel gradually split in half and descended to the depths of the ocean. Had the crew better understood their proximity to the iceberg and also been prepared with enough lifeboats for all the passengers, they would not have crashed and, in the case of other possible accidents, easily evacuated everyone from the ship safely. The personnel working the ship failed to fulfill their duty of keeping the passengers and the vessel safe from danger because they were not responsible enough to handle the massive ocean liner nor were they prepared for the worst-case scenario. The

The Will to Believe is a lecture that was presented by William James in 1896, it specifically defends that one can choose to believe in a religion without prior evidence of its truth. William James was a well-distinguished philosopher as well as a psychologist and a physician. He with a few other philosophers like Charles sanders Pierce and John Dewey were fundamental in establishing modern philosophy in America and are thought to be the founding fathers of pragmatism.

When analyzing this disaster the first thing to consider is the engineer’s design of the Titanic. The Titanic was employing many new and innovative designs that were believed to make the Titanic the safest ship ever built at that time. The engineer’s of the vessel made claims that the Titanic was “unsinkable” and that “even in the worst possible accident at sea, the ship should have stayed afloat for two to three days.” One of the features that lead them to this claim was the 16 watertight compartments in the hull of the ship. The way they were designed allowed for up to four compartments to be breached and they ship would still carry