Clifford Vs James

5 February 2015

Abstract:

This essay will identify the reasons offered by Clifford that there is always a duty to Mankind to provide sufficient evidence for our beliefs. It will be centered around two famous essays: W. K. Clifford’s “The

Ethics of Belief,” and William James “The Will to Believe.”  We will Explore Clifford’s position against James and James’s remark that Clifford fears error or being duped more than he desires truth.

Clifford’s argument that there is always a duty to Mankind to provide sufficient evidence for our beliefs is a highly regarded example of strong rationalism. Some of the reasons for his beliefs are as follows: Clifford calls us to imagine a ship owner who is about to deploy an old immigrant ship off to sea. The ship owner has reasonable doubts as to its seaworthiness. These doubts concern at him and make him unhappy. But he manages to push them out of his mind, placing his trust in Prudence and the knowledge of the ship builders. He determines that the ship will make it the journey safely.

In one instance, the ship goes down and Clifford asks us what our opinion of this captain is. Clearly, says Clifford, “He is indeed responsible for the deaths of these people. His final conviction may have been sincere, and his conscious motives may have been impeccable. Nonetheless, he had no right to a sincere conviction of this sort given the evidence that was available to him. So he is at fault”. (Clifford)

Revise the situation so that the ship completes the mission safely. Clifford maintains that the owner is just as guilty as in the previous instance. He has not been found out, but he is not innocent. He is comparable to the IV drug user that used dirty needles and thru good fortune does not contract AIDS or hepatitis. According to Clifford, the moral crime lies in the laxity and in the creation of risk, not in the bad consequences. From a moral point of view they are on the same level.

Clifford thinks about another kind of situation. Conversation circulates around that certain authoritative people — university professors or possibly politicians— are spreading treacherous doctrines by immoral means. A group is formed to counter against this, and its associates find themselves making public accusations against these people. When a commission is formed to investigate the matter, it finds that that the accusations were based on insufficient evidence and that this would have been clear if anyone had bothered to investigate. Again Clifford concludes that the associates in the group however genuine and benevolent, are morally inexcusable for believing as they did on insufficient evidence.

His overall view is that a person who is careless or unquestioning in the formation of his opinions places others at risk, since untruthful beliefs can be treacherous. The examples concern people with direct authority and people whose opinions directly affect the lives others. But even the most ordinary person is in a position to affect what others do. He sets an example by his habits of mind, and a bad example is a malicious one. Society is a relationship. No person stands alone. We have a strong moral responsibility not to let our desires our biases hinder a coherent valuation of evidence.