Tonight, I was forced to contend with a contradicting set of ideas. I have a deep-rooted belief in humanity’s right to think, act, and believe freely. This has been evident in my behavior and actions going back to when I was a kid. Only more recently, have my words caught up to my actions.
There was something embedded in my subconscious that sent me scurrying through old papers and notebook folders in search of something that would challenge this particular idea. I had an idea what it was, but no idea where it was. I finally found it. It was William K. Clifford’s, The Ethics of Belief (I will post a link to Clifford’s critique below.).
What are Clifford's Ethics of Belief
Clifford contends that all individuals have an ethical responsibility to develop, sustain, and disseminate reasonable beliefs, while those that are apathetic towards this responsibility must be viewed as immoral and sinful. Clifford presents his argument by explaining the relationship between the beliefs of men, and the consequences that those beliefs have for the rest of society. The basis for his view is that there are no “insignificant” beliefs. He contends that since our actions are tied to our beliefs, then our beliefs could potentially lead us to do some harm to another or many through our actions.
He concludes that ultimately, our actions and decisions will affect other members of society. He offers this as proof of the immorality and sinful nature of disingenuous and unfounded beliefs.
This isn’t the best part, yet!
He does not, however, limit his condemnation to those reason-less beliefs that affect others negatively. Instead, he speaks to the dangerous and unlimited bounds of all unworthy beliefs, regardless of their outcomes!!!
Why does he believe this?
This, he reasons, is because, although negative outcomes will certainly have an impact on the lives of others, it will be modestly felt compared to the spreading of untruths that comes with the habitual development of possessing and adhering to unfounded beliefs, which shall permeate through society faster and with more vigor than any sole negative action. Furthering his argument, Clifford states that men are unable to relinquish unfounded beliefs because many of us fear the unknown. There is much to fear by way of the unknown, but nothing like admitting to yourself that all that you had believed to be true, may be false. This is a form of sacrificing power, which we possess in only small portions, and we tend to cling to what little we possess.
He uses the example of a ship-owner who has an inclination that the ship he is renting out to go to sea, is in need of repair. The ship-owner, in rue of paying for the repairs and missing out on the potential earnings, rents the ship out anyway. The ship sinks mid-ocean and all those traveling on it perish! So, this is where it gets good. Clifford blames the owner of the ship for not “investigating’ thoroughly enough before renting it to these people to go out to die at sea. That is somewhat reasonable, I suppose. I mean we have people in our society suing people over much less than this present day. However, Clifford condemns the man as immoral, not because his ship sank and killed a ship –load full of people, but because he sent his ship out in the first place! So the results of our actions are irrelevant; Clifford’s ethics of belief concern themselves with our responsibility to investigate thoroughly before we believe what our feelings and our instinct to follow others influence us to do.
Is he a nut job?
Clifford’s assertion that evidence is needed in order to believe in something, is a very scientific approach, but reduces greatly the impact or importance of making “gut,” or “human” decisions. These are necessary at times, such as when the difference in evidence is seen as negligible, or when we do not have enough evidence to base a conclusion on. Some people view life as being too short, and the mindset to gather evidence would prohibit people from living, and would make us collectors instead. There are also some things that are not necessarily tangible, or quantifiable, and therefore can not be backed by evidence because there may not be facts to look to. In conclusion, Clifford makes a good argument concerning the immorality of unsupportable beliefs, in that they impact others, but his theory would stifle mankind and suppress our universal desire to think beyond evidence, and analyze and live our existence in terms of ourselves.
Finally, it seems that Clifford’s logic contradicts freedom to believe, and I don’t know if I’d be comfortable with it. Who am I to tell someone that they have not thought things out sufficiently enough? I think there is risk in a society adhering to freedom, and that’s fine. I rather have a society based on freedom with some risk, then one where we suffer from paralysis-by-analysis and are constantly telling each other to investigate their beliefs more. If I had to choose, I would choose the risk that is associated with freedom.
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf
I thought this was interesting and thanks for reading!
What do you guys think about this? Do we believe in things too easily?
As usual, all comments welcome.
Feel free to upvote and follow.
I thought I wasn't aware of Clifford's work (I'm not good with names!), until I read about the ship example! That's kinda famous!
I think your article is very sweeping. What I mean is that in the process of reading it, I get inklings of what Clifford meant, but I don't really understand what he meant. So I'm left with a teased but unquenched feeling! Perhaps narrowing it down to a smaller more specific point would've been better?
I find myself in broad agreement with Clifford, but can't be sure until I study the details.
I have not felt completely satisfied with my postings. I feel that I am caught in between; in making a thorough and compete argument and keeping it concise enough to be expedient for the reader. This has left me having not accomplished either objectives. I haven't written in a while though (never in a blog format), so hopefully my postings will improve over time.
Yeah I think we're all caught between those two Scylla and Charybdis.
I think you're right, Clifford goes too far in expecting humans to act based on omnipotence.
True, we can not see all. Another critique of Clifford, might be that evidence itself can't see all. In the example of the ship-owner, he could've investigated for problems and deemed the ship's condition permissible, and still a certain storm or wave may have destroyed it. Still though, a part of me thinks Clifford has a good argument (the need to be critical of our beliefs), but not to the point of extending blame to those who he feels having been critical long enough or to the extent that he chooses.
It's not always that we have ideas, but that ideas have us ;) WE should verify our claims, but we can still have beliefs that can't be verified.
There's a reason airplanes have required inspections. Having people's lives depend on machinery is a responsibility of the owner of the machinery to upkeep.
I agree, we should all be free to have our beliefs and make the choices that we think will serve our interests the best. I do agree with Clifford, in as much as it is our own responsibility to investigate our beliefs to assure that they are sound. If someone invites you to go for a ride in his car and before you get in it, you see that all of the tires are wobbly, then you probably shouldn't go for that ride in this particular car. You are right, it is the responsibility of the owner for upkeeping his machinery, but it also the responsibility of the user, based on his inspection of the machinery, to use it or not. But you are right, at some point we have to stop inspecting and start using. Nothing is 100% safe. Thanks for commenting!!
"I have a deep-rooted belief in humanity’s right to think, act, and believe freely." Closely related to Critical Rationalism, and I am extremely proud to be a critical rationalist myself. We have the same way of thinking.
Very interesting read. Thank you.
Upvoted and Resteemed
Questioning and challenging our own thoughts and beliefs leads to better thoughts and beliefs. I feel that when I am being critical of myself and my beliefs (or when others are being critical of them), I am at my best because the world changes, evidence changes, and we change; everyone must have the ability to do this. When I feel like "I am this way or I believe this to be true," for a long period of time (which I do sometimes), then I feel stagnant and non-evolving. Thank you for the comment , upvote, and resteem!!
My pleasure
Good work
Thanks for reading!
Congratulations @therussianmonk! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP