1 Should there exist a criteria for formulating and justifying a belief? W.K. Clifford believes that the only way a belief can be justified is if it is based on sufficient evidence. However, William James disagrees with Clifford and questions how much evidence is sufficient in order for a belief to be justified. James argues that reason does not have to be the only aspect for justifying beliefs and our intuition can also be trusted. Not only does Clifford undermines our human nature but he also provides a very unclear definition of sufficient evidence. He does not take into consideration that it is possible for different people to interpret things differently. Furthermore, Clifford advocates a universal truth. However, Pyrrhonian skeptics would disagree with this notion. According to Pyrrhonian skepticism it is not possible to know whether you attained absolute truth. By undermining the definition of sufficient evidence and by adopting Jame s theory and Pyrrhonian skepticism it will be clear that Clifford s model is not convincing. Clifford claims that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence (554). He states that people must carry out their epistemic duties and thus base their beliefs on sufficient evidence (552). However, Clifford recognizes that this duty is a hard one to maintain (553). When we realize that we hold many biases we tend to feel powerless (Clifford 553). Clifford believes that there is a sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge (553). He argues that people often do not want to confront their biases and thus they formulate their beliefs based on insufficient evidence (Clifford 553). He believes that even if the belief turns out to be true the formation of such a belief is unjustified (Clifford 553). For example, if you steal money from someone by believing that nothing terrible might come out of it, because the person will not feel the loss, this belief is nonetheless unjustified (Clifford 554). Clifford states that a person s belief is not a private matter (552). He argues that our lives are
2 interconnected and as a result, our decisions affect society. Therefore, Clifford believes that what will hurt society is not that the person will feel the loss but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society (554). Whether the thief is caught or not should not matter in determining the ethics of his actions. Furthermore, whether the result of his actions was a negative or a positive one is also not a factor in concluding that his belief is unjustified and sinful (Clifford 553). Clifford believes that credulity is dangerous for society because people will stop investigating things and will sink into savagery (554). By adopting Clifford s theory one can then claim that human kind will greatly benefit from it. For instance, when people will not have sufficient evidence for formulating beliefs they will search further and as a result investigations will increase. For example, judges before making their decisions will try to investigate their cases further to find sufficient evidence. However, Clifford s definition of sufficient evidence is unclear. All Clifford specifies is that people must base their beliefs not on biases and credulity but on sufficient evidence. One is then faced with the question of when is it enough to stop searching for further evidence? Moreover, can the definition of sufficient vary from one person to the next? Is it also possible that people s degree of rationality varies? One can interpret that according to Clifford, sufficient evidence means that when formulating a belief a person simply needs to look for evidence. Yet this does not necessarily mean that people should find as much information as possible. Furthermore, this interpretation also does not suggest that there is a universal definition of sufficient. It is possible that people can interpret things differently and truly believe that they do not possess any biases. As a result, they will stop searching for further evidence. This suggests that some people might not be aware of their own biases and ignorance. If people do not even realize that they have
3 certain biases when they are formulating a belief then why would they think that they need to search for further evidence? Furthermore, if people possess certain unconscious biases then they will search for evidence that will fulfill these biases. If a person is not aware of his or her biases then that individual will not recognize that his or her search for further evidence is also biased. Clifford does address this problem, however, he does not propose an adequate way to eliminate it and instead only criticizes such behavior. Yet this is not very persuasive since as shown above it can be extremely difficult for people to recognize their biases. Even if we assume that all people can agree on the same definition of sufficient, and recognize when such evidence is needed, it is still debatable whether we should not make a decision if we are lacking evidence. For example, James disagrees with Clifford and believes that by deciding not to make a decision we are automatically making a decision not to decide (556). Furthermore, James believes that Clifford is wrong in thinking that people can only live on reason (557). As James puts it our passional nature influencing us in our opinions must be regarded both as an inevitable and as a lawful determinant of our choice (559). Not only does James believe that human passions influence our choices but contrary to Clifford he also embraces this (James 559). James believes that Clifford is wrong in trying to eliminate this aspect of our human nature. Moreover, according to James we must rely on our intuition when there is insufficient evidence (559). Not only there is nothing wrong with acting according to your nonrational thoughts but also it is sometimes required (559). If we adopt this belief then we must question Clifford s idea that credulity is terrible for society. James tries to show that we do and should sometimes make decisions based on our passions (559). However, Clifford can claim that society will sink into savagery if people will base their beliefs on non-rational aspects
4 (554). Furthermore, sufficient evidence will no longer be required if people do not need reason. As a result, people s biases can override their reasoning in formulating beliefs. Yet one can also argue that basing a belief on one s intuition does not mean that that belief is unjustified. Clifford believes that we need sufficient evidence in order to formulate moral beliefs. One can argue that it is also possible to formulate moral beliefs based on intuition. For example, say you are faced with a situation where your mother will die unless you can steal a certain drug that will cure her. You can start rationalizing, and conclude that stealing is always wrong. On the other hand, you can appeal to your human passions and conclude that your mother s life is much more important to you than committing a theft. This example shows that one s morals can be appealed to through non-rational methods. Clifford would probably argue that in order to make a decision in this particular case a person should look for further evidence. Yet if a person cannot find any evidence at this time should this mean (as Clifford would suggest) that a person should not make a decision? How can you not make a decision when your mother s life depends on it? As James argues there are situations where a person must make a decision. Furthermore, the above example shows that even when you are formulating a belief without sufficient evidence it is still possible to base it on your morals. Also, even if a decision is based on sufficient evidence this does not mean that it is a moral one. It is also possible that reason can be used to justify immoral acts. A person can search for sufficient evidence, however, this does not mean that the information found will be used towards making a justified claim. For example, a person can apply his reason and manipulate the collected information in order to formulate a biased claim. For instance, lawyers try to discover all the information available and at the same time try to persuade the jury that their client is innocent no matter what. In this
5 example people use their reason and all the sufficient evidence to formulate whichever claim is needed to win their case. This shows that even if we have sufficient evidence it does not mean that our claim might be justified. At the same time, even if we do not base our decision on reason this does not prove that our claim is unjustified and immoral. Pyrrhonian skeptics can challenge Clifford s idea of epistemic duty by claiming that one can never know what is the right way of living. According to these skeptics, we can never be certain of one absolute truth; different people hold distinct beliefs ( Pyrrho 175). One s beliefs are not necessarily better than someone else since there is no universal way to measure truth (Pyrrho 183). Pyrrhonists suggest that the best way of life is to conform to your society s beliefs. The morality that is determined by your culture is not necessarily the right one but this should be irrelevant. This belief challenges Clifford s idea of sufficient evidence. For example, Cliffords states that in order to make moral decisions they have to be based on sufficient evidence. However, Pyrrhonists challenge the idea of morality altogether. If there is no universal morality that is known to people then Clifford s idea becomes very subjective and unnecessary. He criticizes conformity and believes that you have to question your beliefs and thus condemns credulity. Yet Pyrrhonists show that this is not a way to live your life since it is impossible to achieve the absolute knowledge. As a result, the need for sufficient evidence is undermined. Clifford does not convince us that sufficient evidence is needed for formulating a belief. He argues that people have this episetemic duty where each individual is responsible to society. However, Pyrrhonist skeptics undermine this idea by claiming that there is no way to know if we necessarily are living the right, moral life. Moreover, sufficient evidence is not necessary for formulating your belief, but instead your culture can determine what you should believe. If there
6 is no one unified truth that is available to us then Clifford does not persuade us that credulity is necessarily bad for society. Moreover, he does not provide a clear definition of sufficient evidence. As a result, even if one believes that there is this duty to society it is still unclear at what point one should stop searching for further evidence. Furthermore, this condition of sufficient evidence does not eliminate people s biases. As shown above a person can search for further evidence in order to suit his needs. James also shows that we do not always need reason in order to formulate a belief. Furthermore, our intuitions are very important to our psyche. Cliffod does not persuade us of his idea of sufficient evidence since it is possible to formulate beliefs on insufficient evidence and still make moral decisions. At the same time, it is also conceivable to formulate biased beliefs on sufficient evidence.