The Ethics Contrast (Essay Sample)

Insert your name
Course
Professor’s name
Date due
Contrast
Introduction
The ethics of belief refers to the issues at the intersections of epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, and psychology. The key issue in the argument is whether there is the existence of norms that governs individuals’ habits of belief-maintenance, belief-formation, and belief-relinquishment. Evidentialism refers to the ability of only believing only in the presence of evidence. Non-evidentialism, on the other hand, is the ability to allow satisfying evidence in order to justify an individual’s belief. Since the topic revolves around faith and philosophy, the arguments will revolve around the religious faith and the belief that God exists. Clifford’s work is remembered to involve two issues: a story and a principle. Considering both the arguments presented by the philosophers, and the adding research work, the non-evidentialist arguments tends to fall within an individual’s system of belief in God and issues of faith. This paper will defend the belief in God applying the points provided by non-evidentialist philosopher William Clifford’s essay, "The Ethics of Belief.”DiscussionClifford’s Evidentialist ArgumentIn Clifford’s story, he narrates about the ship-owner who was able to go to sea, with a ship that was in bad condition and it needed repair to function efficiently. The owner of the ship had some doubts about how the ship will survive on the sea. Despite the doubts, the owner of the ship decided to send his ship to the sea without having the chance to repair the ship. The ship did not manage to complete the journey as it sank in the middle of the ocean with all the crews becoming victims of the ill-fated ship. The owner of the ship was accountable for the deaths of the crews on board the ill-fated ship. The ship-owner is held accountable because he had no right to believe in his ship to manage the journey (Aikin 177). This is because of his experience in the shipping industry and experience with the ship. The owner of the ship decided to put his faith on the ship because it had previously made safe journeys without having accidents.On Clifford’s perspective, there is no satisfying evidence, in this case, to allow the owner of the ship to proceed with sailing the vessel. Hence, Clifford suggests that if the ship owner examined himself on his action, he would have the ability to realize that he has done something, which is wrong. The ability to send the ship without first examining it causes the accident. The owner of the ship should be able to focus on his conscience to know what he did was wrong. Clifford further argues that it is not the ship-owner’s mistaken belief in the soundness of the vessel, but it was his ability to send the ship out to the ocean without satisfying evidence to justify his belief in the ship’s worthiness. If the owner of the ship could have collected enough evidence before letting the ship to the sea, then there would be a different argument concerning the ethics of belief (Aikin 179). Despite his knowledge about the state of the ship, the ship-owner ignored to examine the ship and caused the deaths of the men on the ship.According to Clifford argument concerning the evidence that should be provided to support a belief, he argues that unless a belief is capable of influencing an individual to act on something, in this case, to focus on ship examination and repairing it, the individual fails to have a belief. This is interesting because Clifford’s statement reflects some part of Kierkegaard’s existentialism argument. Kierkegaard’s argument suggests that an individual’s passion, or sometimes a heartfelt belief is lived out of action. Kierkegaard’s further argues that the inward passion is the cause of some actions in some people (Aikin 142). Clifford in his argument suggests that if an individual fails to act immediately upon his or her beliefs, then his or her beliefs are stored to guide him or her in future. This is likely to result in an explosion of action.Clifford’s statement is similar though subtly different thoughts. This is because Clifford fails to subscribe to the beliefs to be private, internal, or inward, similar to Kierkegaard, but Kierkegaard does speculate that the beliefs can be internalized for future use. In this case, Clifford states that in the situation of the ship owner, the ability to believe on insufficient evidence is wrong. One should not be able to feed their belief by quelling their doubts and failing to further their research. Clifford’s argument tends to rely on the capability of evidence to influence people’s actions in diverse ways (Aikin 183). Activities that are acted based on beliefs without justifiable evidence is more likely to cause negative effects to the society since beliefs are not private, concerning an individual alone. It is not right for an individual to believe something without evidence.The Non-Evidentialist ArgumentThis argument is based on the Christian perspective. Blaise Pascal was known to be a Christian philosopher who gave himself the responsibility of bringing the non-believers to God. While many people considered the Wager to be a weakest philosophical statement against evidentialism, there is more thoughts and information on the argument if one has a better understanding of Pascal and the era he lived. During his time, the medieval philosophy was becoming non-existence and theology was not taken seriously. The classic arguments that aimed to prove the existence of God had ceased to attract attention during this period of intense uncertainty. Pascal’s Wager was provided not entirely to convince the society that the existence of God was real, but rather to make them consider against the widespread beliefs of the age, skepticism, and force of choice that exists either for or opposing Christianity and God (Aikin 190). Pascal was aware that writing about the Wager could not be able to lead the society back into deep Christian faith, but he considered it a starting point for m...