Doxastic Dilemma

The debate between doxastic conservatism and doxastic liberalism has been a topic of controversy for quite some time. Two prominent figures in this respect are William Clifford whose support of doxastic conservatism is outlined in The Ethics of Belief and William James, who defend doxastic liberalism in his work The Will to Believe. Personally, I find Clifford’s position resonates better with my own process of accepting and discarding beliefs, however it is important to note that by saying this I am not rejecting the virtues of doxastic liberalism. Quite the contrary, I do believe that in some instances a liberal attitude can prove worthwhile, I simply find James’ reasons for applying a liberal attitude to be rather problematic. A discussion on whether or not James’ reasons for applying doxastic liberalism may go beyond the scope of this paper, so any such inquiry into this matter will be kept to a minimum.

In his defense of doxastic conservatism Clifford offers the following argument: Before accepting a belief, we must ensure that there is sufficient evidence which supports said belief (1,5,10). If after examining the available evidence, we find that it does not support the belief, than that belief must be discarded (2-4). Additionally, there are instances where a belief “goes beyond our experience” and can be accepted based on inferences of similar experiences, assuming that the inference is drawn logically from reliable experience (8-10). Finally, Clifford gives weight to sources of authority, such as writings of history or the words of another author, lest there be grounds to doubt their motives or intentions or reliability (8-10). Now that Clifford’s position has been laid out, we can begin to investigate his reasons for holding this position, and what implications they carry. The crux of Clifford’s argument rests on the fact that harboring a belief based on false evidence (or no evidence, or contradictory evidence) poses a moral hazard to our society. When Clifford states that “No one man’s belief is a private matter which concerns himself alone” he is appealing to our sense of moral obligation, as to Clifford belief is “…ours not for ourselves but for humanity” (3). Put simply, Clifford makes a compelling argument for doxastic conservatism, by suggesting that every belief has far reaching consequences beyond those posed to the individual: Our words, our phrases, our forms of processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handled on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. (3)
In fact, Clifford places a great deal of importance on inquiry into the validity of our beliefs, so much so that he argues it is our duty to put our beliefs to the test of evidentialism, if not for our sake, then for the sake of mankind (1-5). Clifford takes this one step further suggesting that credulity is in and of itself problematic, even if a credulous person does not “exhibit it in outward acts” (5). Thusly we arrive at two collectivist moral reasons for rejecting beliefs without proper evidence: Firstly, such beliefs become a part of the fabric of society and as they are passed down they pollute rather than “purify” our collective understanding of the world (4-6). Secondly, the act of being credulous is and of itself a moral hazard to society, as it encourages further credulity, and as Clifford asserts that “the credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat” and would soon become like them given ample time (5). The second part of Clifford’s paper sets up the parameters and limitations to which doxastic conservatism applies. Clifford makes a distinction between beliefs that we can act on based on evaluating the evidence, and those which fall in the realm of possibility. Clifford insists that at times “it is our duty to act upon probabilities, although the evidence is not such as to justify present belief; because it is precisely by such action, and by observation of its fruits, that evidence is got which may justify future belief” (7). Such a statement seems to contradict doxastic conservatism, but when examined closely it encourages it. Yes it is true that in the case of probabilities, actions may be carried out with insufficient evidence, but it is better (according to Clifford) to take an educated chance in this case, than let a “habit of conscientious inquiryparalyse the actions of our daily life” (7). When assessing any type of philosophy, it is important to look at both its strengths and its weaknesses. Such an evaluation must be done not only in the abstract but also in the practical. That is to say, if such philosophy is followed, what are the practical benefits? What if any are the drawbacks? In the following paragraphs I will begin by outlining the benefits of Clifford’s doxastic conservatism, followed by its potential pitfalls. On the surface Clifford’s level of conservatism seems to be rigid and unwelcoming to new ideas. While this is true, it is precisely what makes it so attractive. To the doxastic conservative, truth holds a much higher standard of evaluation than that of the doxastic liberal. Essentially, the criteria for accepting a belief are far narrower in doxastic conservatism than in its counterpart. This means that only beliefs that are grounded in sufficient evidence are accepted as true beliefs, and all others which fail this criteria are discarded. This level of selectiveness ensures that beliefs which are based on emotion, fancy or faith are not accepted for these reasons alone (although, given sufficient evidence they may be accepted as true beliefs). Another strengths to Clifford’s position is that it entrenches the concept of moral and ethical behaviour, both in our overt actions and (perhaps more importantly) the beliefs which govern them. To Clifford, no man should be held unaccountable for his dubious beliefs, as such beliefs can pollute the beliefs of others, or more subtly influence others to discard the importance of inquiry in to the root of everyday beliefs. Additionally, by always basing our beliefs in proper evidence, we avoid running into problems of “blind faith” and their consequences. Such a point is illustrated well in A.J. Burger’s essayAn Examination of ‘The Will to Believe’. In his essay, Burger demonstrates a real life example of how James’ doxastic liberalism can have dire consequences. Burger outlines the case of a father and mother who burned their child alive because they were convinced she was ‘Lucifer’ (Burger 11-12). Had these parents applied Clifford’s approach, they would have dismissed the belief that their daughter was Lucifer had they regarded all the evidence before making their judgment. Although rather promising, doxastic conservatism is not without it’s flaws. By virtue of being critical in accepting new beliefs, doxastic conservatism must, by virtue of being so restrictive, reject beliefs which are true, but lack sufficient evidence. This is further exacerbated by the fact that there are times when one must make a decision, without the ability to judge probabilities, and without the ability to judge the evidence at hand. In such a case it would seem prudent that a liberal attitude would be superior to inaction, if such a case truly warranted action. Of course although a distinction must be made between beliefs and their actions, it goes without saying thatan action which can only be enacted by the subscription to a belief, of which there is no supportive evidence either way but which must be enacted, that it is better to go with faith or intuition than blindly choosing one belief (and thereby action) over another. Finally although I have praised the moral stance which Clifford adopts in his essay, I do feel that an individualist may see this as a weakness. In this case I would classify Clifford as a collectivist, who feels that the betterment of mankind trumps self-actualization. In going this route, Clifford leaves much to be desired in regards to a humanistic perspective, although weather or not this is a weakness of Clifford’s or just a philosophical preference is still open to debate. I have so far outlined Clifford’s position, and its various strengths and drawbacks, but I have yet illustrate why I find it appealing. I was initially going to end this essay by illustrating James’ doxastic liberalism in my own pursuit of spirituality, until I realized that I had faltered in my assessment of how I arrived at said spirituality. Initially it appeared to me that my belief that “Spirituality is benefical to my life” was drawn purely from a liberal perspective. It appeared to be a “living hypothesis” as both options (weather spirituality is important or not) seemed plausible. Next it appeared as a forced option, as I either accept that it is beneficial to my life or I do not. Finally, I convinced myself that this is a momentous option, which is unique and leaves something significant (my well being, attitude towards life in general) at stake. However upon further reflection, I realized that I had reached my conclusion (that spirituality is beneficial to my life) not only through the liberal process but also through doxastic conservatism. I studied all the instances of my life, where spirituality had had a positive impact, be it my belief in something greater than myself or my secluded excursions and quiet meditations, I drew upon the body of evidence and realized that there was some evidence which put spirituality in a positive light. However there was also the contradictory evidence, in which I recall great periods of neglecting my spirituality resulting in rather hedonistic and perhaps favourable outcomes in my sexual endeavors. In fact there were times when my spirituality went counter to my goals and aspirations and did not affect me favourably. Given contradicting evidence, the doxastic liberalist attitude helped push me over the edge. I had known that there was some evidence which supported my belief in the importance of spirituality, but it was my intuition and trust in my heart which pushed me over the edge, and allowed me to embrace spirituality as beneficial to my life and my wellbeing.

Works Cited
Burger, A.J. "An Examination of 'The Will to Belive'" Burger-book.Web. 11 Mar. 2012. <http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm>.
Clifford, William K. "The Ethics of Belief." Contemperary Review (1877). Web.
James, William. "The Will to Believe."Burger-book.Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm>.