THE ETHICS OF BELIEF

The article is all about the ethics of belief written by William Clifford. He started it by given an
example that will makes us convince that the connection between belief and ethical consideration
seems very strong. He started it by given an example of a scenario where the ship owner was
about to send to sea an emigrant ship.
The ship owner is aware that his ship may required overhauling. However, before the ship leaves
port, he convince himself that his fears are unfounded and his faith is in providence. He also
convinces himself not to be suspicious of previous shipbuilders and contractors who worked on
the boat.
Everyone on the board dies when the ship sink in the middle of the ocean.
William Clifford insist that the ship owner bears moral responsibility for these people's deaths.
And his flaw is obvious: he allowed anything other than the evidence to govern his beliefs. 
Clifford also asserts that if the ship had never sunk, he would be just as culpable.
It's not the outcomes that make actions bad. It is not the question of whether or not an action is
wrong. He had no legal authority to do so. He just believe that the ship is safe and it was a
mistake for him to assume such even if he was fortunate enough that nothing went wrong as a
result of it.
It may occur to the reader that the problem was not holding the belief, but acting on it.
Clifford argues that even if your belief is fixed, you can control your actions and have
responsibilities to act in specific ways (for example, having the ship tested before sending it on a
lengthy voyage) even if you don’t believe anything is wrong. However, he believes that the
initial decision stands: if the opinion was obtained illegally – that is, without relying on firm
evidence. Then the person who holds the belief is open to moral judgment and has failed in his
responsibility. And this is due to the fact that beliefs is not simply separate from action.
It says that having a tendency to act in specific way is a part of holding a beliefs. And if you
have a strong belief that is not supported by evidence, it will cloud your judgment when you try t
o carry out your responsibility of thoroughly exploring facts.
Clifford also understands that faith is more than a personal affair.
Any incidence of believing for erroneous reasons, in Clifford’s opinion, has the potential to
infect and corrupt the system of belief on which we all rely. And every behavior like this erodes
our self-control and critical thinking skills.
And a lack of concern for the evidence inevitably leads to a lack of concern for the truth.
Clifford sum up that believing something based on insufficient evidence is always, everywhere
and everyone wrong.
The implications for religion should be obvious: if Clifford is correct, believing in God without
sufficient evidence — or, as some people phrase it, relying on faith — is incorrect.
So, how do we interpret this?
The argument has an interesting aspect. 
Clifford understands that society shapes a lot of our opinions. He refers to a heritage as a sacred
trust of socially held ideas. Clearly, no one can check everything at this time.
We must all rely on some assumptions for which we will never be able to acquire evidence. In re
ality, this is true of the vast majority of our general ideas.
In one sense, our explanation for these kinds of beliefs is really weak: it is entirely dependent on 
other people.
And, I am somewhat disagree about Clifford’s thesis for the reason that it offers no proof to back
up his claims, but he expects us to believe them and more importantly to build our entire lives
around them. His thesis is intended to be a scientific and ethical criticism of subjectivism. If you
will ask if what subjectivism is, it holds that truth can be discovered within ourselves, through
personal experiences.
The Ethics of Belief by William Clifford fails us to persuade of the reality of the statement that
subjectivist ethics are immoral.
While it strongly supports objectivist ethics (those based on the belief that truth can only be
discovered through objective verification), the fact that the argument’s foundation is based on a
subjective claim. It is wrong for anyone to believe anything based on insufficient evidence. And
that’s causes the argument to fall apart immediately.
As a result, we cannot accept Clifford’s stance without instantly rejecting his premise, lest we
become immoral in doing so.