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

Clifford and jam Summaries of W. K. Clifford and William crowd togethers bloodlines for judgment In this paper, I hope to effectively tot W. K Cliffords (1879) argument on the ethics of look, followed by a summary of William crowd together (1897) argument on the undecomposed to look at, and finally, provide an argument for wherefore W. K Cliffords (1879) argument is buckramer by highlighting its strengths part simultaneously arguing against William crowd together (1897) argument. According to Clifford (1879), in that location is an ethics to tactile sensation that makes it always wrong for both angiotensin-converting enzyme to believe eachthing on in enough recount.Clifford (1879) begins his paper by providing an illustrative analogy ane where a ship-owner is preparing to send to sea a ship filled with loose men, women, and children. Prior to its departure, doubts had been brought to his attention regarding its condition and the conjecture of a failure to compl ete the voyage. The ship-owner, now in a dilemma, successfully convinces himself that because the ship had weathered so soldieryy storms and successfully completed so many voyages, it was fit to believe that the ship was fit to sail.He acquired a grave belief that the ship would successfully complete the voyage despite its discernible faults. Eventually, the ship sank. Clifford (1879) argues that the ship-owner is responsible for the death of those innocent men and women non save did the ship-owner ignore the doubts regarding the ships capabilities, but he acquired a ridiculous belief by simply stifling his doubts. Yes, he felt sure as shooting about the ships capabilities but, he only acquired such a conviction by allowing himself to believe it, and non found on comfortable license.Clifford (1879) also argues that in the event the ship had not sank and had completed the voyage, the ship-owner would not fox been innocent, he would only have been not found out. (498) I n essence, Clifford (1879) argues that the outcome has no effect since the origin of his belief was flawed and ground on whims rather than turn up. In another analogy where a root of men ar accused for manipulating children, Clifford (1879) argues that those who accused the innocence of the men ground on self-propagated beliefs ar not honourable men, (499) regardless of whether the accused were guilty.He illustrated the ideology that no accusation croup be made unless there is qualified indorse to supplement it if competent evidence dealnot be found, then the case-by-case loses the ripe(p) to believe that sure belief, as he will constipation himself and humanity. Clifford (1879) argues it is in force(p) and necessary to examine evidence on both sides of any belief with patience and c be. Right, because when a man is so consumed by a belief so as to not entertain other grounds, he pile still choose the action stemming from that belief thus, he has a duty to investig ate on the ground of the strength of his convictions. (499) And necessary, because those who deform consumed by their self-sponsored beliefs moldiness have a rule to deal with actions stemming from those beliefs. Clifford (1879) argues no integrity belief is isolated from the action that follows, and no belief is ever so rightfully in monumental. No individual can legal expert the validity of his beliefs in an ingenuous manner thus, the actions following beliefs, regardless of being true or false, can have strong implications on our future if not corrected now. Clifford (1879) argues it is indispensable to continuously judge our beliefs and validate them found on suitable 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. tone is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity. (500) Because our actions which stem from our beliefs impinge on those around us, Cli fford (1879) deems it a worldwide duty to constantly doubt our closely held beliefs. Although we naturally do not like to draw 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 commensurately 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 order to progression as a fair and just society, our beliefs must be evaluated and supported by evidence which is fair and just, and not by apparent truisms which satisfy our personal power struggles, insecurities, and lack of interest. William throng (1897), on the other hand, attempts to define the permissible cases in which it is intellectually respectable to believe without enough evidence.James (1897) begins by providing three criterion for judging beliefs either beliefs are 1) living or dead 2) forced or avoidabl e or 3) important or trivial. A live possible action 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 station and/or when the last is irreversible. James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need be beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence.He uses Pascals Wager as an fashion model James (1897) argues Pascals Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to show the universe of discourse of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions 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) acknowledges the item that many beliefs are pre-supposed and without sufficient evidence.To challenge Clifford (1879), he says our belief in equity itself that there is a truth what is it but a fervid affirmation of desire, (505) effectively questioning 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 better and better position towards it. (505) In discussing telepathy, James claims scientists do not want to consider the evidence for telepathy because they depend that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to concord it suppressed It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot stretch 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 to avert all elements for which they an find no use. (506) Thus, James effectively argues that even the scientists concupiscent convictions and prejudices form their beliefs, as we see in the case of telepathic inquisition. Finally, in this section, James (1897) argues such behaviour re-inforces Pascals Wager a pre-existing belief can generate further beliefs, and that logic wholly 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 delusive to know the truth succession 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 seek of being wrong or in error is trivial compared to the disaster of stumbling upon real knowledge and of indefinitely guessing true. (506) In his opinion, it is better to insure 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 accept 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 hurry that the dangers of being duped by believed a premature opening need be faced. (507) James (1897) then goes on to state that advanced(a) sciences nervousness 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 tolerateing with impunity 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 religion 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 same fashion that we choose to disbelieve in the scratch place James (1897) argues that it is better to risk the chance of error than the handout of truth.Finally, James (1897) argues that to believe in religion or God with the thought 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 lie with the fruits of the after- flavour, then society and/or sciences imposed rules and laws of requiring sufficient evidence for the stay 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) arg ument is stronger than Jamess (1897) in the area of ghostly belief.In his article, James (1897) made a number of references to the apparently frivolous actions of scientists and their self-loving habits of waiting for sufficient evidence. However, his rendition of live hypotheses still does not get hold of sufficient reason to believe in a certain belief without first establishing a basis for its verification. First, in any experiment, sufficient evidence is to be based on objective proof which can evenhandedly 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 discover 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 dumb 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 ourselve s and to serviceman to be honest with one another, and not believe just to ingest 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 insouciant beliefs will not affect others drastically however, there is a compute 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 hap of unfounded beliefs adversely affecting some persons life? Do we want to run the risk of hurting a love 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, although 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 fit a fair society.After all, in the presumption of innocence, our legal system kit and boodle in a similar way the legal system ensures every(prenominal) 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 duty to continually question our beliefs and search for sufficient evidence in forming our new beliefs. References Pojman, Louis, & Rea, Michael. (2012). Philosophy of morality An Anthology. Boston Clark Baxter.