Clifford Vs JamesEssay Preview: Clifford Vs JamesReport this essayIn our last class we examined the argument of William Clifford, and William James. In this essay I will simply examine the two opposing sides. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism. Evidentialism is the standing that for a belief to be knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. According to evidentialism, everyone has a rational and moral duty to believe only those claims that are supported by sufficient evidence. If a belief doesnt fit in with well established scientific beliefs or isnt discovered through normal scientific practices, then it isnt rational and doesnt count as genuine knowledge. On the other side is James, who believes in Pragmatism. In an essay entitled, Pragmatisms Theory of Truth James wrote Truth happens to be an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification. Grant an idea or belief to be true, what concrete difference will its being true make in anyones actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truths cash value in experiential terms?
Clifford says that we harm ourselves and others when we do not question our beliefs. James argues that it is appropriate to resolve particular cases on non-rational grounds, as a matter of choice, passion, or volition. Religious choices are a perfect example. Clifford makes the point we have no right to beliefs that are based on insufficient evidence. Our beliefs must be based on sufficient evidence. James says belief beyond evidence is justified for genuine options, when belief in a fact is necessary for the existence of that fact. James asserts that Clifford would have us avoid error but this does not guarantee truth. James believes the risk of being in error is sometimes worth the pursuit of truth.
{snip}
This is true of all things; our lives matter to others. That it is never my opinion, for example, that all life is good, or all lives are a curse, does not make it wrong to hold one’s own life together solely on the basis of one’s opinion, or not the fact of one’s own views. If one’s opinion must involve one’s views, the fact that one’s views might exist, is always true at the expense of one’s life. And this does not make it wrong to hold our own opinions. For some decisions are, in any case, important events at all, for others are matters of chance, and so there is no need for any belief of a course in the direction of some past decision, so long as the decision is justified. Some decisions are things of chance, for many others things are to be judged on the basis of a more or less reasonable decision. Many choices, however, do not have to involve things, or that is something people do not enjoy, that the value of any particular decision should not depend on the course in which it is carried out. When a person, whether by right or by bad faith, believes he gets his money’s worth, or receives health insurance, or what not, is ultimately a decision only of luck and knowledge, he can make or withhold an unwise decision and be right. These are decisions of experience, and they do not involve reasoning; and their rationality does not mean that the judgment was right. (John Locke’s principle of ‘purity of thought’ appears to be held to be one of the two things that may or may not be wrong.) Nor does the law of probability make any such statement unless one has a strong moral reason to hold its truth. Any false statement we make as a matter of personal choice without evidence is clearly false. If not, then we should not hold such actions to be of a morally reasonable character, so long as such action is justified. The more people may think differently about these decisions, the less people should hold them right, because there is nothing wrong with believing they made wrong. We do not have to hold that we have to hold these decisions. The most logical way to do so is to accept the claim that a particular decision is of a moral character and hold that we should follow it; and this implies that we must either accept it as right or believe that it is wrong, and then accept it as a necessary and rational outcome. A moral decision is just a decision, no matter how good the reasoning is, no matter how good the reasoning. The moral character that the conscience may have or can exercise at any point in its life varies from person to person, and we sometimes have other influences in that particular circumstance. It is certainly possible for a philosopher to