William James & William Clifford - New Voices In Philosophy

On the basis of moral justification theories, William James and William Clifford are considered some of the well-renowned voices in philosophy. While William Clifford bases most of his arguments on convincing people that establishing their beliefs accurately is a matter of real ethical significance, William James on the other hand, bases his arguments on trying to make available a rational validation for faith. The two philosophers contradict each other, yet their theories prove useful in determining what is morally justifiable and what is not. In view of this, I will seek to focus on drawing the definitions of moral justification from the two philosophers and how they approach the issue of religious faith in giving sought opinions. While equally concentrating on the character Luke Skywalker from the film Star Wars, in attempt to evaluate whether he is morally justified by theories of the two philosophers when he decides to turn off his tracking computer in a climactic battle scene founding on religious faith.

Morality, as argued by Clifford, cannot be without evidentialism (Aikin, 2015). He terms it wrong for any person to have faith in anything that has little proof to support its existence. Setting his basis on evidentialism, he presents religious belief in itself, to be characterized by inadequate evidence. This is so because there is insufficient proof to support the existence and the belief in God. He, therefore, argues that one should not have religious faith and anybody who exploits the proposition should thereby be considered as immoral. Clifford equally argues that the belief in God leads to other shortcomings, in both the moral and the intellectual aspect. He perceives religious belief to be a phenomenon that is non-isolated, and a unique case of epistemic recklessness (Aikin, 2015). If Clifford were advising Luke Skywalker, he would have considered him to be not only reckless but also immoral in its highest sense for switching off his tracking computer in the midst of a battle.

Contrary to William Clifford, William James postulates the will to have faith in its fullest context is not self-assurance or fantasy gone wild but a concept that may be held, though responsibly (Doore, 1983). He perceives the danger in discarding evidentialism, and this raises practical complications of its own. James argues that since the arguments supporting the existence of God do not hold, the old-fashioned conception of God proves irrelevant as well. He, however, reconstructs religious belief by citing it to be concerned more about the abode of hope in our lives rather than the scanty existence of the nature and presence of God. According to James, the concept of religious belief is not concerned with God, but a simple belief which gives the perception that the more perpetual things are at their best. (O'Connell, 1997). Therefore, if James were offering counsel to Luke Skywalker, he would have considered him as morally justified for holding onto his belief. He would have praised Luke Skywalker for recognizing the place of hope in his life and switching the computer would have been the best solution according to his faith.

It is obvious that James partly supports Clifford's argument concerning evidentialism and how it is not morally right to believe a God whom little evidence supports. However, he differs from Clifford on the definition of religious belief and its application in real life. Clifford would on the best case scenario regard James's view as wrong because he gives the impression of defending religious belief by twisting it into a different explanation. James would on the other hand refer to Clifford's view as being insensitive to people as well as their cultures and upbringing which in most cases contribute to attainment of the religious beliefs. This is true, as in the case of Clifford's presumed opinion to Luke Skywalker's case. Even though both philosophers reasonably and differently argue their theories, the fact still remains that the iconic antagonism between Clifford and James admits of resolution that the two theories drive to the same point- that very little evidence exists about God and having a belief about him is purely immoral.