Is There a Moral Obligation To Support Our Beliefs With Evidence?

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Is There a Moral Obligation To Support Our Beliefs With Evidence?
People tend to believe in various phenomena such as the existence of God, their inner power, entrepreneurial skills, among other things. Since many factors such as stereotypes, upbringing, environmental factors, and personal experiences shape their perceptions, various psychologists have argued whether people have a moral obligation to support beliefs with evidence or not. William Clifford and William James have contrasting opinions regarding supporting beliefs with evidence. Clifford proposes that one should only believe responsibly, which means they should back them with strong evidence that they have investigated. James, on the other hand, argues it is rational to think willingly so long as one can support their proposition (Lotzof 35). Of the two views, I tend to support Clifford’s argument because, in my opinion, one should only believe in what they have sufficient evidence to explain and endorse. In other words, they should only make conclusions based on evidence as beliefs shape actions, eliminates credulous reactions, and pollutes collective knowledge.
Beliefs shape actions. If one believes that it might rain, they will be persuaded to carry an umbrella. Such reasoning helps them to avoid the rain. A student who does not want to fail exams will start preparing well ahead of the rest, which increases their chances of excelling in the class. James would critique this view, arguing that fears, worries, and intuitions shape people’s beliefs and that they need no evidence to support their actions (Lotzof 42). However, one who believes, say, that they are supernatural and jumps off the cliff hoping they will not be hurt will be making a fatal mistake. It is common knowledge that reckless actions lead to devastating consequences, while good behaviors generate better results (Harding 83). Therefore, beliefs should be tim...