1. What Does Clifford Consider to Be the Appropriate Ethical Norm Governing Belief Formation and Maintenance
In The Ethics of Belief by W.K Clifford this philosopher states that it is wrong in every situation ever to believe anything based on insufficient evidence, as it is wrong for someone to simply believe something to be true based solely on the sincerity of their convictions or by stifling their doubts. He states that if the origin of the belief is not founded on proven fact then the believer is guilty of an untrue/false belief as a result of not taking the time or having the patience to investigate the validity of the belief and, even if their belief is sincere, they have “no right to believe on such evidence as was before them” . I agree with Clifford’s’ evidentialist view to a point, as in theory it is a good one, however, practically I believe it is not a realistic way to live your life, as it would be near impossible to find time to investigate and sufficient evidence on which to base every single belief that you come across in your life.
Evidentialism states that the justification for a belief is based entirely on the evidence supporting that belief, therefore defining the epistemic condition of a belief. This can be summarised by the simple thesis “For all persons S and propositions p and times t, S ought to believe that p at t if and only if believing p fits S's evidence at t.” Clifford’s evidentialist principle is extremely similar to this thesis, as the main point of his argument is that “it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence” . From this we can see that he believed that sufficient reason and evidence supports a belief and if counterbalanced then one should withhold assent to that belief, rather than risk believing something based upon inadequate information. One aspect that Clifford emphasises more than the ordinary evidentialist thesis does is the severity of the consequence toward the believer of a false belief, as he uses words such as ‘guilty’ and ‘sin’ to describe the transgressions of these
Evidentialism states that the justification for a belief is based entirely on the evidence supporting that belief, therefore defining the epistemic condition of a belief. This can be summarised by the simple thesis “For all persons S and propositions p and times t, S ought to believe that p at t if and only if believing p fits S's evidence at t.” Clifford’s evidentialist principle is extremely similar to this thesis, as the main point of his argument is that “it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence” . From this we can see that he believed that sufficient reason and evidence supports a belief and if counterbalanced then one should withhold assent to that belief, rather than risk believing something based upon inadequate information. One aspect that Clifford emphasises more than the ordinary evidentialist thesis does is the severity of the consequence toward the believer of a false belief, as he uses words such as ‘guilty’ and ‘sin’ to describe the transgressions of these