The Ethics of Belief Philosophy Essay Example

Many philosophers have argued what they believe is morally right and wrong when discussing our beliefs. W. K. Clifford, for example, claims that we must always have reliable evidence before accepting something to be true. Although he makes a strong argument, others have questioned whether there are certain circumstances when it is permissible to believe without evidence. Though it is wise to believe in something when given sufficient evidence, it is acceptable to believe without evidence if it helps motivate, strengthen, or help guide an individual to become a better person.

Philosopher W. K. Clifford strongly felt that it is wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence, as he explains in his essay, The Ethics of Belief. To demonstrate the importance of his belief, he tells the story of a man inspecting a vessel. When examining the ship, the man started to worry when realizing its many flaws. Not only was it an older ship, but in desperate need of repair. Because he did not want to care for and fix the boat's issues, he decided to ignore his original thoughts and began convincing himself that it was sturdy enough to make the journey. However, when on its voyage, the boat sank, and no one on board survived. From his story, Clifford explains how the man was responsible for the accident since there was not enough evidence to confirm that the ship was in good condition. To further discuss and prove his point, Clifford changed the ending of this story. Instead of the boat sinking, it safely and successfully arrived at its destination. Although nothing happened to those on board, Clifford explains how the man who inspected the ship was still guilty. As he states, "When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accident failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that." (Clifford) The man would not have been innocent but would have gotten away with this evil act. Regardless of how the story ends, Clifford concludes that sufficient evidence is needed to determine whether something is true, or in this case safe, or not. 

Clifford also explains his thoughts by discussing religion. Though he was religious as a child, he later lost hope and no longer believed in God. Clifford realized that there was no actual evidence of God's existence, or for that matter, any other religion. As he explains, "The Prophet tells us that there is one God, and that we shall live for ever in joy or misery, according as we believe in the Prophet or not. The Buddha says that there is no God, and that we shall be annihilated by and by if we are good enough. Both cannot be infallibly inspired; one or other must have been the victim of a delusion, and thought he knew that which he really did not know. Who shall dare to say which? and how can we justify ourselves in believing that the other was not also deluded?" (Clifford) Though it may be possible that there is a true religion, how can we decide or tell which one it is? Or tell which are untrue and made up by others? Since there is no sufficient evidence, it is impossible to say, meaning it is better for us not to believe in any religion rather than in one that could be false.

Though Clifford makes a convincing argument, I believe there are some cases where we can believe in things without sufficient evidence. Religion, for instance, should be one of these cases. Clifford argues that there is not enough evidence to prove any religion exists. Therefore, we should not believe in them. Though this might be true, is it wrong to believe in religion if it helps an individual? The whole idea of religion is to guide us into becoming better people. For example, it motivates people to be kind to one another. For some, one of the hardest things to do is to be kind to someone they dislike or to those who have done them harm. However, some religions remind us that although this is difficult, it makes us stronger and better people and shows our love of God since he himself showed kindness to others.

By being kind, we show others how even a small act of kindness can help someone greatly or help people reconnect. Some are even inspired to do the same. Religion also encourages individuals to learn from their mistakes. It is no shock that we, as humans, make many mistakes. Even as children, we make mistakes, but this is part of growing up and understanding right from wrong. However, some religions say that the mistakes we learn from are God's way of somewhat correcting us and putting us back on the right path. Understanding our mistakes is a sign that we are becoming better and wiser people. This lesson also connects to the idea that religion motivates us to ask for forgiveness for our sins. When we make a mistake and harm someone unintentionally, religion motivates us to reach out to those we hurt, showing our understanding of what we did and wanting to make the situation right. We are also encouraged to pray for God's forgiveness, so we can once again be accepted by him. 

Religions might be slightly different, but they all guide individuals and influence them to change for the better. Even if their ideas of why they must become better people is wrong, for example, to be accepted into heaven, isn't that permissible? Clifford might still disagree with this. He may continue to view this as wrong because, again, since there is no evidence of any God, our beliefs could be incorrect, and believing in something false is, from his perspective, immoral. Regardless, if these beliefs are helping people be kinder to others, understand their mistakes, and learn to or ask for forgiveness, I do not believe it is wrong. How is this any different than tricking kids into believing Santa Claus? When we were younger, our parents would tell us that by being kind towards others, Santa would put us on his nice list and bring us presents. Though Santa does not exists, why would parents continue to tell their children about him if it were wrong? The answer: it shows them that good things come to those who are kind to others. Religion could be teaching us a similar lesson. After all, wouldn't it be better for us to believe in something untrue to make us better people than in nothing at all?

Multiple philosophers have argued about our beliefs and what they consider moral or immoral. Clifford, however, argues that it is wrong to believe in something if it does not have sufficient evidence. Although some would agree with his idea, I do not. I feel that there are some cases where evidence is not needed, such as religion. The main purpose of religion is to help individuals become good people so that when they pass, their souls will be able to go to heaven. Though there might not be much or any evidence to prove God's existence, the idea of God has helped guide individuals to become good people and put them on the right track in life. If a false belief helps someone become a better person by spreading kindness, learning to grow from their mistakes, seeking forgiveness from those they do harm to, etc., isn't the belief doing more good than harm?