The Ethics of Belief

Argumentative rise on The Ethics of Belief PHIL 2641 Online Section 001 February 13, 2008 William K. Clifford ticks out to show in The Ethics of Belief that it is damage always, everywhere, and for anyone, to swear anything upon poor evidence In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as in fit evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is non the article of belief but the resolving powers of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results.Clifford introduces his argument by using the example of a carrybuilder who allows his charge to be used on a transoceanic voyage despite its age and the supposed need for make. The vessel sinks and Clifford asserts that the channel proprietor is guilty of the death of the passengers because his belief in the ships seaworthiness was unsupported and ill-founded. However, there ar several problems with his purpose. First, Clifford ignores the ship owners reliance on the vessels past coast history as being sufficient evidence as to its immutable condition.The fact that the vessel had made many a voyage without misadventure can be viewed as sufficient proof of its ability to set sail safely. This begs the question, How can one determine what constitutes sufficient evidence? The ship owner by relying on the history of the ship alone could boast met his obligation. A second problem with Cliffords argument is that he in all probability oversimplified the cause of the ships sinking. Perhaps the ship sank because there was a collision with a nonher ship. Perhaps it sank because it struck an iceberg in the water.It whitethorn have sunk because of human error. In all of these scenarios no step of fortification of the ships structure would have Argumentative raise on The Ethics of Belief Page 2 of 3 prevented the end of the voy age. Any one or combination of these causes could have been responsible for the ships fate, yet the ships age and need for repair is identified as the sole cause of the ships sinkage. Finally, Clifford fails to shout out the source of the ship owners interrogation and therefore leaves a multitude of unanswered questions.If the question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of belief and whether or non one has the right to believe in the first place, then would the ship owner have been blameable had the doubts about the ships condition not been introduced? Is a soul required to investigate EVERY doubt or question that is raised(a) by another, which directly or indirectly oppositions their belief? What if the source of doubt is unreliable? Without properly addressing these questions it is difficult to determine what the ship owners (or anyone elses) responsibility was in the first place.This, I assert, is the fundamental problem with Cliffords argument. To implicitly assu me that one is guilty for simply believing without sufficient evidence can not be easily determined because the standards and and so the determination for right and wrong are too vague. The solution follows immediately. Since a person can have a different belief at any given point in time and there is no metric by which to determine the adequateness of evidence upon which they are based, it is not the belief that is to be judged, but rather the action and the positive or negative impaction upon gild that results from it.Cliffords primary concern was how beliefs impact humanity, and the impact can only be determined by assessing actions, not beliefs. Argumentative Essay on The Ethics of Belief Page 3 of 3 We can now see that Cliffords uncogent argument is the result of a lack of clarity as to how one could determine whether or not given evidence was sufficient and the vagueness surrounding the definitions of right and wrong. In its amended form, however, the argument is valid and can serve as a useful tool to determine and measure the overall impact beliefs have on society.My central argument is an inductive argument. Here are the premises and the conclusion Premise 1 Premise 2 culmination There are no clear metrics to measure the sufficiency of evidence from which a persons beliefs are derived. Actions and their impacts on society are definite and measurable. Therefore, people should probably be judged based upon their actions and not their beliefs. My argument is cogent because my premises are true and it is improbable that my conclusion is false. Furthermore, no evidence which would have rendered a different conclusion has been ignored.