Clifford's Principle

Clifford's Principle is best summarized as a general rule for decision making. As outlined by Clifford, "The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him" (Clifford in Burger, Ethics of Belief). Thus, it is morally wrong for an individual to make a decision on insufficient evidence, regardless of the outcome.

In order to prove his theory, Clifford considers the case of the ship owner. Before sending a ship out to sea, the ship owner reflects on the sea worthiness of the vessel. The ship owner realizes that the ship is not up to current standards and that it may not make the voyage. However, the ship owner placates his troubled mind by arguing that the vessel has seen many voyages and made these successful. As such, there is no reason to think that this ship will note be able to make this one final journey. The ship owner sends the vessel off with pleasant thoughts of the crew's safe landing in its new home. The owner is not dissuaded from his decision even when he finds that the ship has sunk.

Using this situation, Clifford argues that a solid decision was not made by the ship owner in this case. Rather than finding clear evidence that the ship could indeed make the journey, the ship owner chose to ignore evidence and make a decision based on a lack of concrete information. "He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts" (Clifford, Ethics of Belief). Clifford argued that decisions made in this manner cannot be correct because they do not offer the evidence that demonstrates that the decision being made is indeed a good decision. Clifford goes so far as to argue that even if the chip has been sound, the ship owner should not have made the decision to send it if he did not know the condition of the ship.

Options and Hypotheses

James (1898) made the argument that a decision could be made between two hypotheses by framing the decision in the context of an option. By classifying hypotheses as such, the individual could chose between live and dead hypotheses, living and dead options, forced and unforced options, momentous and non-momentous options. The following provides an explication of each of these options:

· Living and Dead Hypotheses and Options: According to James when a choice must be made, the option can be predicated upon something that is living or dead for the individual. If the options are dead-meaning not known by the individual-they will have no meaning. If the options are alive-meaning they are known to the individual-they will have some meaning for helping the individual to make a decision.

· Forced and Unforced Options: An unforced option is one in which the individual can get out of making a decision by avoiding the options altogether. James notes the case of the following statement: "Choose between going out with your umbrella or without it" (p. 3). Both options can be avoided by not going out at all. Force options are those in which the individual must chose one of the options provided. "Either accept this truth or go without it" (p. 3). The individual must make a decision based on the options provided; there is no other alternative.

· Momentous and Non-Momentous Options: A momentous option is one that carries with it the possibility for a momentous outcome-i.e. reaching the North Pole. A non-momentous option is one that has no real significance or bearing on the outcome of life-what cereal to eat in the morning.

James' Principle

While Clifford argues that the use of objective evidence is necessary in the process of making the right decision, James makes the argument that individuals are justified in using intuition and logic in their efforts to supplement the objective evidence that is not present. As such, James focuses on the reject of the truth as the central means for decision making. To illustrate this point, James makes the observation that many individuals use evidence of the past as a means to justify its existence. What this implies is that eve though an individual has not met a person from the past, he or she knows that person is real through photographs and monographs. By sheer will the individual cannot convince him or herself that a person from the past is not real.

Taking this one step further, James examines Pascal's argument about accepting Christianity. Pascal argues that, in the end, the individual should accept Christianity because not to do so would lead to losing the game. Although James appears to appreciate the logic of this sentiment he makes the following observations about faith: "We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith's reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward" (p. 6). What this effectively suggests is that there are other reasons that spur the development of faith other than the concrete evidence that God actually exists. As such, there is a clear impetus for individuals to use an exclusion of the truth as a means for decision making, rather than the framework proposed by Clifford.

References

Burger, A.J. (2001). The Ethics of Belief. Accessed April 18, 2006 at: http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm.

James, W. (1898). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.