Namgyal Karmartsang

Ways of Knowing
4/4/16
Critical Analysis: The Ethics of Belief
INSUFFICIENT ETHICS
Clifford argues the ethics of belief and how such beliefs may be
considered moral. In each of the three sections, he discusses instances of
belief where they may be found to be justified. Clifford claims that belief
cannot be based on insufficient evidence, and to do so would be
immoral. While I generally agree that beliefs should not be held without
reason, I wouldnt go so far as to say that it would be morally wrong to
make beliefs based on assumptions. Cliffords claim about belief where it is
not earned does little to persuade me of its moral value or of its universal
application to all instances of belief, although he addresses the concerns
regarding beliefs which hold a societal impact (which he additionally claims
all beliefs do to some degree), he fails to show that these impacts are
inherently negative for society and therefore wrong.
ANALYSIS:
CLAIM: Belief must be earned honestly.
PREMISE 1: Sufficient evidence is needed to honestly earn belief.
PREMISE 2: Doubts must be investigated to provide evidence to
belief.
SUB-PREMISE 1: Ignoring doubts is not just cause for belief.

SUB-PREMISE 2: Investigating doubts provides evidence for

belief.
CLAIM: It is wrong to believe based on insufficient evidence.
PREMISE 1: An individuals beliefs concern others.
CLAIM: One mans belief does not concern him alone.
PREMISE 1: All beliefs have effects on the fate of mankind.
SUB-PREMISE 1: An individual should care about the fate of
mankind.
PREMISE 2: All forms of thought are passed between generations.
EVALUATION:
The logic Clifford uses is coherent, but whats more important it what
it leaves out. He does not defend his claim that because an individuals
belief affects others, it would make it wrong to believe with insufficient
evidence. Instead he simply claims that the reason is not far to seek and
after saying that all beliefs have an impact on others, somehow reaches the
conclusion that we have no choice but to extend our judgement to all cases
of belief whatever. Afterwards he builds up the importance of belief, all of
which predicates on the idea that it is in the best interest of the individual
to think beyond themselves to other members of the society and future
generations. While I may not necessarily disagree with his claims, I found
this to be a particularly weak point in his argument as he assumes we will

take him at his word and makes no attempt to explain how in all cases belief
is better when given evidence according to his criteria. In his examples, he
is able to connect it directly, pointing out how in each one, one person was
responsible for the fate of others, but then thinks it sufficient to judge all
cases of belief as if they were under the same circumstances.
CONCLUSION:
Cliffords logic is mostly sound and builds a good case for the ethics of
belief, but it all comes back to the idea that all belief should be treated in
the same way he treats his examples. This flaw is a foundation where he
builds his argument from, which has a sound structure, and creates an
overall weak logic. He could have gone further and provided actual
evidence that it is better believe with sufficient evidence and explain how
his examples can be linked to all forms of belief, instead of essentially
dismissing these as obvious.