Reconstruct one of his arguments (not the examples) in standard form. Then evaluate that argument for soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have? Do you see any fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning?
In section one “The Ethics of Belief” The Duty of Inquiry by William Clifford, he argues that to have a belief in God or anything is wrong if there is not sufficient proof to back up said belief. This can be inferred when he says “… it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence,” (7).
His argument in standard form: 1. It is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence since all beliefs influence action. 2. Our beliefs always have a significant and harmful impact on other people. C. Therefore, it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.
In Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” he argues that having a belief in anything without justifiable truth is wrong due to the fact that beliefs prompt action, these actions then go on to effect other people for generations. He also discusses how our beliefs, certain decisions, and statements are all made based upon our past life experiences. Clifford continues his argument by discussing how people should be using their own experiences and examining themself to determine if they are making the right or wrong decisions.
Cliffords argument is a valid agreement because his conclusion follows his premises, but the premises and conclusion are not true. Therefore, his argument is not sound because his premises take the form of slippery slope in the argument he says that all beliefs have a direct harmful effect on others and I just don’t think that is true for every person. Most people have beliefs that have no effect on others because they simply do not act on it to their belief is to just be kind to others therefore causing no harm to anyone around them. Some people, on the other hand, have beliefs in certain things and act on it but only in a way that makes their actions prove that having the belief is valid with a sufficient amount of evidence. My example of this thought process that something isn’t true without significant evidence can be seen in things like the STEM field. In this field a theory/belief must be considered untrue and then repeatedly proven to be considered true. As for the average person belief in God the speculation of his existence is tricky, since some have reason to believe in him based on miracles they’ve experienced, and others don’t believe because they feel as they have no reason based on their own personal past. My thought process is that though people’s lives it is determined on whether or not they believe in a higher being. I also strongly feel as though everyone is entitled to their own beliefs based on their own experiences. This is where some faults in Clifford’s argument can be seen; on top of that it can also be noted that he only really focuses on his own life making it completely true to him but not so true to everyone else.
word count: 524 source: https://thinkingbeings.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/the-ethics-of-belief.pdf
Lauren's blog :) 