A Comparison of W.K Clifford and William James's Arguments on the Right of Belief
Clifford and James
Summaries of W.K. Clifford and William James’s arguments for belief
|
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.
According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled with innocent men, women, and children. Prior to its departure, doubts had been brought to his attention regarding its condition and the possibility of a failure to complete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dilemma, successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so many storms and successfully completed so many voyages, it was fit to believe that the ship was fit to sail. He acquired a sincere belief that the ship would successfully complete the voyage despite its apparent faults. Eventually, the ship sank.
Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women – not only did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ship’s capabilities, but he acquired a false belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure about the ship’s capabilities; but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and not based on sufficient evidence.
Clifford (1879) also argues that in the event the ship had not sank and had completed the voyage, the ship-owner “would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out.” (498) In essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the outcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed
Summaries of W.K. Clifford and William James’s arguments for belief
|
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.
According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy – one where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled with innocent men, women, and children. Prior to its departure, doubts had been brought to his attention regarding its condition and the possibility of a failure to complete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dilemma, successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so many storms and successfully completed so many voyages, it was fit to believe that the ship was fit to sail. He acquired a sincere belief that the ship would successfully complete the voyage despite its apparent faults. Eventually, the ship sank.
Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women – not only did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ship’s capabilities, but he acquired a false belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure about the ship’s capabilities; but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and not based on sufficient evidence.
Clifford (1879) also argues that in the event the ship had not sank and had completed the voyage, the ship-owner “would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out.” (498) In essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the outcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed
References: Pojman, Louis, & Rea, Michael. (2012). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Boston: Clark Baxter.