Clifford’s Argument
By A’dia Dickerson
British philosopher W.K Clifford argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (Pojman and Vaughn: 158). Clifford argues that our beliefs should be supported by sufficient evidence, investigated and doubted thoroughly in order for us to come to a conclusion; which would then fulfil our moral responsibility before accepting something as truth. Stating “believing involves ethical principles, so we violate our moral duty if we obtain beliefs where the evidence is insufficient” (Pojman and Vaughn: 158). Clifford uses two examples to support his theory: a shipowner sending to sea a non safe ship and a group of people who accuse religious teachers of abusing children and engaging in unethical methods in order to obtain their religious teachings. From these examples and understandings, birth Clifford’s moral principle.
Premise 1: Individuals have a moral responsibility to investigate and doubt their beliefs because those beliefs can influence their actions and affect or harm others.
Premise 2: Believing without sufficient evidence violates the moral responsibility to investigate one’s beliefs.
Conclusion: Belief without sufficient evidence is morally wrong.
Although Clifford does not explicitly discuss God’s existence, his argument has been applied to religious faith, especially the belief in God’s existence. In the perspective of Clifford’s principle his argument can be constructed through the following premises and conclusion.
Premise 1: It is morally wrong to believe in something as truth without sufficient evidence.
Premise 1: Individuals have a moral responsibility to investigate and doubt their beliefs because those beliefs can influence their actions and affect or harm others.
Premise 3: The belief in God, lacks sufficient evidence.
Conclusion: Therefore believing in God is morally wrong.
Clifford argues that we have a moral obligation to examine the evidence supporting our beliefs before accepting them as true. The moral responsibility delves from the idea that believing without sufficient evidence can harm others and society by suppressing doubts of said belief. Our beliefs have a direct influence on actions ensued which then influence humanity either by knitting society together or disbanding it. The belief in God requires faith, which can involve believing without conclusive evidence. From Clifford’s perspective faith alone does not justify sufficient evidence for God’s existence. Clifford uses two rational belief examples that use logical methods to come to a conclusion rather than providing irrational belief examples which can stem from senses and emotions. Therefore using his premise of rational belief, the belief in God lacks sufficient evidence and therefore concluding believing in God is morally wrong.
Clifford’s argument is well articulated but I particularly disagree with premise one and two. In “The Ethics of Belief”, Clifford has a paragraph surrounding how our thoughts and beliefs do not entirely belong to us and are influenced by society while also influencing society. Under this same perception if our thoughts are influenced by society isn’t our moral judgement also influenced by this same society. Moral judgement is different from society to society and culture to culture. What one group deems morally acceptable, another might not. In this same perspective doesn’t society also influence evidence? If society is so involved in belief, “Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thoughts are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age…” (Pojman and Vaughn: 156), wouldn’t both our beliefs and evidence be conceived from the influence Clifford states society has on us? The question arises, how can Clifford establish a universal more responsibility to only believe with sufficient evidence, when both morality and gathering and understanding of evidence are influenced by society? Clifford uses the words “always”, “everywhere”, and “anyone”, which is a universal moral claim which contradicts his acknowledgement that society shapes our thoughts, beliefs and methods for obtaining evidence. Kelly James Clark, similarly criticizes Clifford’s argument, questioning the universal portion of Clifford’s principle. Clark states Clifford does not have sufficient evidence to support his principle, claiming that not ALL beliefs can be supported with sufficient evidence. Clark states that not all circumstances and beliefs need sufficient evidence and varies from circumstance to circumstance. While I question how Clifford can establish an universal moral responsibility that contradicts his acknowledgement that society influences, Clark questions whether his principle can be applied to every belief or circumstance. I criticize Clifford’s principle because I believe it cannot be universally applied to all circumstances and beliefs, particularly pertaining to the influence of society regarding sufficient evidence and moral judgement.
