The ethics of belief

"Ethics of faith" refers to a series of problems at the intersection of epistemology, mental philosophy, psychology and ethics. The core issue of the discussion is whether there is a norm to regulate the formation of our beliefs, the maintenance of faith and the habit of giving up. Is the belief in inadequate evidence always morally wrong? Based on sufficient evidence, do you think that you were always morally correct, or always right, or do you think that the belief is missing? Is it always necessary or necessary to find all available cognitive evidence for faith? Is there a way to get unethical or unreasonable evidence? - / -

Naturally, the classical trajectory of belief debate ethics is an article naming it. "Ethics of Faith" was published in 1877 by a mathematician of Cambridge and a philosopher William Goldden Clifford in a journal called "Contemporary Review". At the beginning of the paper, Clifford defended the strict principle that we are always obliged to provide sufficient evidence for each belief. Indeed, since the early part of "belief ethics" was very strict, William James later described Clifford as "delicious greed" and defended "self-discipline." Tragedy "(1896, 8)

In "Ethics of Faith", William Clifford believes that no one can believe without evidence anytime, anywhere. Clifford gives immorality without evidence. An example of faith is the owner of a ship who believes that his ship is on the sea, abandoning the overhaul of the ship, overcoming his doubt, spending the examination and making the necessary repairs. This example is a belief in self-interest. For his own interests, the owner of the ship overcame his doubts. Then he gathered his insurance and everyone on his boat died in the ocean as he proved that the ship was not ship resistant.

Clifford's article is called "belief ethics" for just good reason. He wants to convince us that it is morally important to form our beliefs in the right way. Therefore, he began with an example that seemed to have a very strong relationship between faith and moral consideration: the owner knew that his ship might need to be reviewed thoroughly It was. But before he left the harbor he talked about his doubts. He reminded himself that the ship sailed several times before. He realized he believed in Providence. He persuaded himself not to distrust shipbuilders and contractors who had worked on ships in the past.

At first glance, "Permanent Ethics of Faith" contradicts that. Faith ethics assumes that we should try to respect the norms of belief formation. Tolerance to the issue of faith seems to mean that we do not have to do anything to fully justify our beliefs. We do not consider specific specs, but they are all welcome. Therefore, explicitism is only an explanatory argument. It does not stipulate attitudes towards the subject. Furthermore, it does not specify what it means about the subject of "evidence" (does this mean that he holds the evidence by considering existing evidence?) Finally, it cognitively Since it is reasonable, it does not specify how much p must match the subject evidence for p.