The Theories of Clifford and James - Essay Example

? of Lecturer] Philosophy 103 William Clifford's Theory versus William James' Theory Introduction William Clifford and William James are two among the most widely studied philosophers in the academic and professional spheres. Although their works cover a wide range of subjects such as emotions and beliefs, certain differences are easily identified in their works. Hence, for different subjects and situations, either philosopher’s theory may prove more effective and relevant than the other’s theory (Kessler, p. 84). This paper explains and compares the philosophers’ theories, arguing out the better of these theories with regards to the subject of “Ethics of belief.” “The Ethics of Belief” versus “The Will to Believe” Born in 1845, William Clifford was an English philosopher and Mathematician who extensively worked on the subject of belief about which he wrote quite a number of papers. In his work entitled “The Ethics of Belief”, Clifford highlighted two core reasons he felt beliefs are not just peoples’ private business (Kessler, p. 324). This stance on beliefs courted as many enemies and friends for Clifford as people opposed and supported his notions in equal measure. “The Ethics of Belief” sought to emphasize the principles of his feelings about beliefs. However, the central issues in this essay, like in most other essays he wrote on belief, was to show that it is wrong for a person to accept or believe in or about things without supporting and considerable evidences (Kessler, p. 324). In fact, it is Clifford’s notions and principles, which are considered the principles on which modern scientific reasoning is based. The main reason Clifford asserts that beliefs are not personal businesses is the fact that one’s beliefs affect others in society. For instance, since beliefs originate from actions and actions have consequences on society, it only makes sense that beliefs have more than personal consequences (Kessler, p. 324). Second, since a person’s beliefs are handed down from one generation and individual to another, beliefs impact on the larger society. Among the channels via which beliefs are transmitted to others is communication, implying beliefs affect the general and every day opinions of a community. The other strong argument fronted by Clifford is that believing things on poor or flimsy grounds makes a person and society vulnerable to believe in falsehood, which may then be transferred to the larger family or society (Kessler, p. 324). On the contrary, in 1896, William James conducted a lecture entitled “The Will to Believe”. In essence, this lecture sought to counter Clifford’s assertion that beliefs should be based on significant evidences. That is, James felt that beliefs need not be based on prior evidences of truth (Kessler, p. 324). The lecture by James is largely regarded as being defensive of religious faith, which is often seen to lack evidence of truth. The central argument in this lecture was that the initial adoption of beliefs should form the basis of accessing truth and ascertaining whether evidences exist for the beliefs in question (Kessler, p. 324). For instance, according to James, one may believe in his ability to execute a given task, if such a task requires one to be confident. In fact, James opines that even scientific inquiries are based on first believing that something exists without first having significant evidence. Thus, for James, like one may believe in his or her ability to accomplish a task, religious belief may be rational if a person initially lacks evidence of the truth of the belief (Kessler, p. 324). However, James’ theory gives room for situations in which it is not entirely clear whether one is likely to lose or gain truth. That is, by not making up one’s mind, one may save himself or herself by throwing away the chance of gaining the truth about a belief (Kessler, p. 324). These scenarios are those in which one is not often forced to choose between believing falsehood and truth According to William Clifford, it is not good to always believe things or situations anywhere without enough evidence. Such an action, according to Clifford, is tantamount to immorality of belief. A common example of immorality of belief in Clifford’s works is that of a ship owner who avoids the expenses of carrying out the necessary checks and repairs on his ship and prevails over his doubts, believing the ship is sea-worthy. In such cases, belief is often found to go against an individual’s interests (Kessler, p. 324). For example, in the example of the ship’s owner, the ship wrecks and the owner collects interests while everyone aboard the ship dies at sea. It is from such occurrences and baseless belief that Clifford coins the term immorality of belief. On the contrary, William James asserts that every individual has a right to believe under certain circumstances, even if there are no sufficient evidences to support such beliefs. James’ theory is specifically based on the fact that people are sometimes faced with situations that demand for choices to be made about conflicting values. In such cases, believes James, the scientific and skeptical stance taken by Clifford cannot be of much help Whereas Clifford’s theory does emphasize the need to avoid errors due to baseless beliefs, James’ theory postulates that decisions made in life are of different tones and shades than is Clifford assumes. According to James’ theory, some there are certain decisions on which people have no choice since they are unavoidable (Kessler, p. 354). In addition, there are life decisions that are either inconsequential or significant. Thus, Clifford’s theory does not recognize that some decisions are momentous and one must not have evidences to put into consideration. An example of a momentous belief for James is religious belief, which carries almost similar weight and importance to that of deciding to get married. Thus, if one delays marriage for lack of evidence on the likelihood of undergoing a divorce, the benefits and goodness of marriage may entirely be forfeited. Similarly, religious beliefs are momentous for the goods it brings to a person, regardless of the existence of evidence for such a belief. Like religious belief, momentous beliefs come with a lot of realities and meanings to existence and need not be based on scientific evidences (Kessler, p. 245). An example of trivial option is whether to take an umbrella in the morning or not. One is free to do so or not. The other strong point fronted in James’ theory is that even not making a decision on an issue is itself a decision. In other words, failing to make a choice or decision is equivalent to loss of truth or good feelings that may have been experienced. Clifford thus believes that decisions and beliefs that are live, momentous, and forced do not necessarily have to be based on scientific evidences. Thus, suspending such beliefs or decision simply because evidences for them are insufficient would imply that life would be heartless. James’ theory is thus more appropriate for situations in which there are no straightforward and purposeful evidences (Kessler, p. 354). In other words, this theory should not be mistaken to ignore, deny, or belittle real evidence. Instead, the theory lays a lot of emphasis on the passionate aspects of human life. Thus, James’ theory is appropriate for this aspect of life, which does not allow a person to suspend certain beliefs until enough evidence is gathered. According to James, “the human heart and soul have their own reasons that reason does not know about.” Regrettably, James does not explain the story of the ship owner and his love for money at the expense of the lives of the people. His theory thus errs in this regard as he explains and supports religious belief and eternal things at the expense of ethics. He thus puts more weight on the epistemological issues of belief, doubt, and evasion of attainable evidence than he does on ethics (Kessler, p. 435). Thus, Clifford argues against religious and other beliefs that do not support care and love for human life and wellbeing, which religion purports to support. Conclusion "The Will to Believe" lecture and “The Ethics of Belief" essay are some of the yardsticks for the current heated and controversial debates on faith, and over-belief issues. While William James' stance supports belief (religious faith) without significant scientific evidences, William Clifford emphasizes the need for significant evidences for beliefs, given that beliefs affect society and should not be baseless. William James proposes a believing attitude towards religion while Clifford proposes evidence-based beliefs. From these two theories, it is clear that each has its strengths and weaknesses. However, William James’ theory seems stronger and more appropriate for life in modern society. For instance, since both theories support the voluntariness of believing, it is only right and rational that people believe in what promotes their interests. Otherwise, why do people love and long for truth? It is because knowing truth promotes and protects their interests. However, both theories’ assumption that belief is an action is wrong since belief is shrouded in epistemic evaluation and it is the issues that hinge on truth and falsehood are relevant to truth. Regrettably, according to James and his theory, the existence of evidence for or against a certain belief makes his hypothesis null and void. Work Cited Kessler, G. E. Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy Reader, Eighth Edition. 2012. Cengage Learning. Read More