Believing without evidence is always morally wrong
This is an provocative, but timely view of the value and meanings of belief and its impact on our new, collective way of interacting. The title is rather strong, but it catches the attention.
The focus is rather clear, so it not intended to be another battering ram or club concerning the diversity of beliefs that people can have. Now, more than ever, especially in the social media sphere, having an ethic along these lines can be more important and vital due to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. In other words, we can start by acting like it matters more than we realize.
This view is obviously going to be controversial, but that's the point. If it is at all provocative and relevant, then the result of any discussions about it are pertinent. It is not so much the details as the overall ethical considerations it presents that can apply across the board in a social sense. Good debates, with pros and cons, are where we can find consensus if we are amenable to that in the first place.
You have probably never heard of William Kingdon Clifford. He is not in the pantheon of great philosophers – perhaps because his life was cut short at the age of 33 – but I cannot think of anyone whose ideas are more relevant for our interconnected, AI-driven, digital age. This might seem strange given that we are talking about a Victorian Briton whose most famous philosophical work is an essay nearly 150 years ago. However, reality has caught up with Clifford. His once seemingly exaggerated claim that ‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’ is no longer hyperbole but a technical reality.
In ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, and what we have diligently investigated. His first argument starts with the simple observation that our beliefs influence our actions. Everyone would agree that our behaviour is shaped by what we take to be true about the world – which is to say, by what we believe. If I believe that it is raining outside, I’ll bring an umbrella. If I believe taxis don’t take credit cards, I make sure I have some cash before jumping into one. And if I believe that stealing is wrong, then I will pay for my goods before leaving the store.
What we believe is then of tremendous practical importance. False beliefs about physical or social facts lead us into poor habits of action that in the most extreme cases could threaten our survival. If the singer R Kelly genuinely believed the words of his song ‘I Believe I Can Fly’ (1996), I can guarantee you he would not be around by now.
But it is not only our own self-preservation that is at stake here. As social animals, our agency impacts on those around us, and improper believing puts our fellow humans at risk. As Clifford warns: ‘We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to …’ In short, sloppy practices of belief-formation are ethically wrong because – as social beings – when we believe something, the stakes are very high.
https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong
= new reply since forum marked as read
You’re a wise and good soul, Newest Reality.
Thank you so much. Really, I am moved. That was kind.
I would also like to extend that to you as a reflection.
