Clifford and James Flashcards
evidentialism
- “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”
- AKA It is immoral to hold a belief that isn’t supported by the positive weight of evidence
concerns about evidentialism
- Depending on how strict we take the “sufficient” in “sufficient evidence” to be, evidentialism might require that we give up most of our beliefs, certainly most of our beliefs about controversial matters
- Clifford refers in several places to “the universal duty of questioning all that we believe” and seems to assume that if everyone took this duty seriously this would constitute social progress and aid in the improvement of civilization
the shipowner case
A shipowner has a ship he comes to suspect might not be seaworthy. But he stifles these doubts and ends up believing that the ship is safe. He sends emigrants to sea on his shit, it sinks and all of its passengers are lost.
clifford’s thoughts on the shipowner case
- Though the shipowner sincerely believes that his ship was safe “he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him”
- He thinks he believed on insufficient evidence.
intrinsically wrong vs instrumentally wrong
- Something is intrinsically wrong if it is wrong in itself, regardless of what consequences it might have
- Something is instrumentally wrong if it is wrong due to its bad consequences
- Clifford’s argument for evidentialism stresses the instrumental wrongness of unsupported believing
an interpretation of clifford’s argument for evidentialism
- (P1) Of all the rules we might adopt for forming beliefs, a rule that strictly prohibits believing without evidence would have the best consequences if it were generally adopted.
- (P2) An act is wrong if it violates a rule that would have the best consequences if it were generally adopted.
- (C) It is always wrong to believe without evidence, even if this is sometimes harmless.
concerns about clifford’s argument
- Against P2
Reject rule consequentialism - Against P1
Do all unsupported beliefs have bad consequences?
james vs clifford
Thinks that Clifford is wrong. His view is that sometimes it is morally permissible to hold unsupported beliefs
some jamesian distinctions
- Living or dead
- Living options are ones where “both hypotheses are live ones” - Forced or avoidable
- Forced options leave one with no alternative
- Ex. “go out with our without your umbrella” is not forced as you may remain at home. But “believe in God or don’t believe” is as there is no other option. - Momentous or trivial
Momentous options offer unique, high-stakes opportunities
pragmatism
- The thesis James presents to oppose to Clifford’s
- If one is confronted with a genuine option in a situation where the evidence is inconclusive, then one is morally permitted to believe- and one probably won’t be able to avoid believing - as one likes.
the case for pragmatism
- James argues for this by criticizing Clifford’s case for evidentialism
- He says its not very believable, and questions thus why Clifford believes it.
- James thinks Clifford did not follow the two laws
- James believes that Clifford commits the error of ignoring the first principle (know truth) because of excessive clinging to the second (avoid error)
the laws of pragmatism
KNOW TRUTH and AVOID ERROR
more about james’ case
James is NOT saying that anything goes, that one may believe what one likes. His claim is that in the very special case of genuine options that cannot be rationally settled by appeal to evidence, one may believe what one likes.
james’ examples
- Friendship and love
- Religious faith
why we need the laws of pragmatism
- The easiest way to respect avoid error is to believe (and thus know) nothing
- The easiest way to respect know truth is to believe everything (including many falsehoods)
