A Comparison of W.K Clifford and William James’s Arguments

Clifford and throng Summaries of W. K. Clifford and William mobs arguments for popular opinion In this paper, I hope to effectively summarize W. K Cliffords (1879) argument on the ethics of effect, followed by a summary of William mob (1897) argument on the right to gestate, and fin all(prenominal)y, provide an argument for why W. K Cliffords (1879) argument is knock-down(prenominal)er by highlighting its strengths trance simultaneously arguing against William James (1897) argument. According to Clifford (1879), there is an ethics to belief that makes it always wrong for each champion to believe anything on in fitted 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, incertitudes had been brought to his cargon regarding its condition and the possibility of a failure to complete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dile mma, successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so homosexualy storms and successfully entire 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 evident faults. Eventually, the ship sank. Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women non provided did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ships capabilities, but he acquired a false belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure about the ships capabilities but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and not base 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 start out been innocent, he would only conduct been not found out. (498) In essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the outcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed and based on whims sooner than evidence. In anformer(a)(prenominal) analogy where a group of men atomic number 18 accused for manipulating children, Clifford (1879) argues that those who accused the innocence of the men based on self-propagated beliefs be not honourable men, (499) no matter of whether the accused were guilty.He illustrated the ideology that no accusation gage be made unless there is sufficient evidence to supplement it if sufficient evidence cannot be found, and then the individual loses the right to believe that certain belief, as he will harm himself and valet. Clifford (1879) argues it is right and necessary to examine evidence on both sides of any belief with patience and care. Right, because when a man is so consumed by a belief so as to not entertain other movement, he can still choose the action stemming from that belief thus, he has a vocation to investigate on the ground of the strength of his con victions. (499) And necessary, because those who become consumed by their self-sponsored beliefs must know a rule to deal with actions stemming from those beliefs. Clifford (1879) argues no one belief is isolated from the action that follows, and no belief is ever truly insignificant. No individual can judge the validity of his beliefs in an unbiased manner thus, the actions following beliefs, regardless of being true or false, can have strong implications on our next if not corrected now. Clifford (1879) argues it is essential to continuously judge our beliefs and validate them based on sufficient evidence.Finally, Clifford (1879) argues our beliefs are not personal property rather, our words, our phrases and processes and modes of thought are common property. Belief is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. (500) Because our actions which stem from our beliefs affect those around us, Clifford (1879) deems it a universal duty to constantly doubt our closely held beliefs. Al though we naturally do not like to find that we are really ignorant and powerless, (500) Clifford argues it would be a crime and a sin on humanity to acquire a sense of power when the belief has not been sufficiently investigated and earned.Clifford (1879) is a strong proponent of proof-based beliefs and of the continuous criticism of beliefs held backed by loose evidence. In rescript to advance as a fair and in force(p) society, our beliefs must be evaluated and supported by evidence which is fair and just, and not by apparent truisms which execute our personal power struggles, insecurities, and lack of interest. 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 tether criterion for judging beliefs either beliefs are 1) living or dead 2) force or avoidable or 3) momentous or trivial. A make out hypothesis is one where the hypothesis appeals to the existing beliefs of the individual a forced hypothesis is one where one must choose between alternatives, and cannot proceed without doing so and finally, a momentous hypothesis is one where there is a lot at stake and/or when the decision is irreversible. James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence.He uses Pascals Wager as an example James (1897) argues Pascals Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the constellationer or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different pro smears hold varying meanings and importance to different individuals it is individuals pre-existing beliefs which form future beliefs once further information is received. James (1897) ac whopledges the fact that many beliefs are pre-supposed and without sufficient evidence.To challenge Clifford (1879), he sa ys our belief in truth itself that there is a truth what is it but a passionate affirmation of relish, (505) effectively question Cliffords (1879) double-standard if Clifford (1879) requires sufficient evidence for beliefs, where is the sufficient evidence to support the belief of truth held by scientists and philosophers alike? Then, James (1897) extends the argument to say we want to have a truth it is our will which pushes us to believe in a truth and puts us in a continually beat(p) and better position towards it. (505) In discussing telepathy, James claims scientists do not want to consider the evidence for telepathy because they think that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band unneurotic to keep it suppressed It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits. (505) James argues that the very law which the logicians impose upon us is based on nothing but their own natural wish t o exclude all elements for which they an find no use. (506) Thus, James effectively argues that even the scientists passionate convictions and prejudices form their beliefs, as we see in the case of telepathic research. Finally, in this section, James (1897) argues such behaviour re-inforces Pascals Wager a pre-existing belief can generate further beliefs, and that logic alone is not enough. Then, James (1897) takes two approaches in looking at the duties in matters of opinion that we must know the truth, and we must avoid error.James (1897) argues it is impractical and unrealistic to know the truth while simultaneously avoiding error it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may in escaping B fall into believing other falsehoods, C or D, just as bad as B, (506) says James (1897). Then, James (1897) argues that the risk of being wrong or in error is trivial compared to the possibility of stumbling upon real knowledge and of indefinitely gue ssing true. (506) In his opinion, it is better to continue to guess or hope for the truth than to continuously deny certain beliefs until sufficient evidence surfaces.He believes it is better to be light-hearted in the regard of evaluate certain beliefs than to constantly question and doubt. James (1897) argues that in most matters, the decision to choose between various options is not so momentous and urgent that a false belief to act on is better than no belief at all. He says seldom is there any such a speed up that the risks of being duped by believed a premature theory need be faced. (507) James (1897) then goes on to state that modern sciences skittishness and yearning to technically verifying the truth may cease her to care for truth by itself at all. (507) In extending this argument, he states that although technical evidence is strong and important, human passions are stronger. He then poses his final question that of weighing the perils and benefits of waiting with im punity until the sufficient evidence is found. In essence, he asks if there are forced options in mans already speculative questions, and whether it is wise to continue to wait until sufficient evidence arrives. In leading up to his conclusion, James (1897) argues that the desire for a certain truth can help bring about its existence so, desire or the will to discover a fact can help create the fact.He infers this to mean that the beliefs conjured and held by our passionate minds may prove to be instrumental in providing the sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs. In conclusion, James (1897) argues that because righteousness is forced and momentous, we cannot remain skeptical and continue to wait, as we will lose the good provided by religion if we continue to wait in the resembling fashion that we choose to disbelieve in the first place James (1897) argues that it is better to risk the chance of error than the loss of truth.Finally, James (1897) argues that to believe in r eligion or God with the notion of being right is the prerogative of the individual and is undertaken at his own risk if the individual wishes to put himself in the best position possible to enjoy the fruits of the after-life, then society and/or sciences imposed rules and laws of requiring sufficient evidence for the chip of that God or religion is unjustified. It is the individuals personal decision and he alone assumes the risk as such, his right must be respected.James argues that individuals have a right to believe without sufficient evidence so long as the belief is live, momentous and is forced. He argues that it is impractical to continue to wait for sufficient evidence to surface while the chance to believe gradually dissipates. Now that I have summarized Clifford (1879) and Jamess (1897) articles, I would like to elaborate further as to why Cliffords (1879) argument is stronger than Jamess (1897) in the area of religious belief.In his article, James (1897) made a number of references to the apparently frivolous actions of scientists and their narcissistic habits of waiting for sufficient evidence. However, his rendition of live hypotheses still does not give sufficient reason to believe in a certain belief without first establishing a solid ground for its verification. First, in any experiment, sufficient evidence is to be based on objective proof which can reasonably prove that the latter cannot hold truer than the former. However, when beliefs are formed based on passion and human emotion, how can one achieve any objectivity?How can there be fair grounds for comparison? How can one individual, who, in his own right, is passionately convinced of his belief based on nothing more than emotion convince the other that his belief is superior when the other individual believes on the same token? Second, James (1897) continually criticizes scientists for their ways and states sciences search for technical verification is a shun for the truth however, would modern science have discovered the cure of diseases and made significant inroads in the field of medical research had it stuck with one belief and not explored other avenues of growth?Is it, then, morally right to continue to hold certain medical hypotheses valid while simultaneously rejecting other possibilities when such an act could concern the lives of millions? Should there not be room for a reasonable amount of doubt and criticisms within ones beliefs to continually improve, rather than degrade, as James (1897) suggests? Yes, James suggests that evidence should be required when the matter at hand is a significant one but who can be a fair judge on the magnanimity of such a topic?Thus, although it may be tedious and inconvenient to continually question and doubt ones basis for belief, it is necessary and categorically the right thing to do. We owe it to ourselves and to mankind to be honest with one another, and not believe just to satiate our personal thirst for power. Finally, James (1897) asks that those who believe regardless of whether they have evidence or not must be left alone and have the right to live and let live. I vehemently disagree.As Clifford (1879) suggested, beliefs turn into actions, and by the time we realize the action undertaken was an immoral one, it is usually too late. We are all connected any thoughts in my mind, or yours, can affect others in an infinite number of ways. As James (1897) stated, most everyday beliefs will not affect others drastically however, there is a fraction of beliefs which can turn actions affecting many people or any one person in profound ways, either negatively or positively.In such a scenario, do we want to leave open the possibility of unfounded beliefs adversely affecting most persons life? Do we want to run the risk of hurting a loved one and/or our reputations because we were too lazy or did not find the issue momentous or live enough to gather sufficient evidence for a belief? Thus, alt hough Cliffords (1879) proposition may seem, again, tedious or time-consuming, it is the only way of ensuring we close the cracks and do our best to ensure a fair society. subsequently all, in the presumption of innocence, our legal system whole caboodle in a similar way the legal system ensures every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, regardless the magnitude of the verdict, because it knows the implications of sending an innocent man to prison. Thus, every belief by the prosecution and defence must be backed by sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. After analyzing the summaries of the respective philosophers W. K.Clifford (1879) and William James (1897) I hope it has become evident that sufficient evidence to support beliefs is not only right and necessary for us, but for humanity as a whole. As a society, we cannot shun substantive, technical evidence because we are satisfied with our pre-existing beliefs. To advance as a society, it is our universal d uty to continually question our beliefs and search for sufficient evidence in forming our new beliefs. References Pojman, Louis, & Rea, Michael. (2012). Philosophy of Religion An Anthology. Boston Clark Baxter.