Final Essay Intro to Philosophy
The Ethics of Belief (1877)
William K. Clifford
Originally published in Contemporary Review, 1877. Reprinted in Lectures and Essays
(1879). Presently in print in The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (Prometheus Books,
1999).
I. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY
A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and
not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had
needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy.
These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he
ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at
great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these
melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many
voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come
safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly
fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for
better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about
the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and
comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched
her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in
their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went
down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men.
It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity
of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such
evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in
patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt
so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and
willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.
Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she
made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her
owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no
accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not
have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. 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.
There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching
neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment. A suspicion got abroad
that the professors of this religion had made use of unfair means to get their doctrines
taught to children. They were accused of wresting the laws of their country in such a way
as to remove children from the care of their natural and legal guardians; and even of
stealing them away and keeping them concealed from their friends and relations. A
certain number of men formed themselves into a society for the purpose of agitating the
public about this matter. They published grave accusations against individual citizens of
the highest position and character, and did all in their power to injure these citizens in
their exercise of their professions. So great was the noise they made, that a Commission
was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired
into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent. Not
only had they been accused on insufficient evidence, but the evidence of their innocence
was such as the agitators might easily have obtained, if they had attempted a fair inquiry.
After these disclosures the inhabitants of that country looked upon the members of the
agitating society, not only as persons whose judgment was to be distrusted, but also as no
longer to be counted honourable men. For although they had sincerely and
conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on
such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly
earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.
Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more
accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make
any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their
belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds. They would no
doubt say, "Now you see that we were right after all; next time perhaps you will believe
us." And they might be believed, but they would not thereby become honourable men.
They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. Every one of them, if he
chose to examine himself in foro conscientiae, would know that he had acquired and
nourished a belief, when he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him;
and therein he would know that he had done a wrong thing.
It may be said, however, that in both these supposed cases it is not the belief which is
judged to be wrong, but the action following upon it. The shipowner might say, "I am
perfectly certain that my ship is sound, but still I feel it my duty to have her examined,
before trusting the lives of so many people to her." And it might be said to the agitator,
"However convinced you were of the justice of your cause and the truth of your
convictions, you ought not to have made a public attack upon any man's character until
you had examined the evidence on both sides with the utmost patience and care."
In the first place, let us admit that, so far as it goes, this view of the case is right and
necessary; right, because even when a man's belief is so fixed that he cannot think
otherwise, he still has a choice in the action suggested by it, and so cannot escape the
duty of investigating on the ground of the strength of his convictions; and necessary,
because those who are not yet capable of controlling their feelings and thoughts must
have a plain rule dealing with overt acts."
But this being premised as necessary, it becomes clear that it is not sufficient, and that
our previous judgment is required to supplement it. For it is not possible so to sever the
belief from the action it suggests as to condemn the one without condemning the other.
No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief
on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in
doubt and unbiased; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a
man for the performance of this necessary duty.
Nor is it that truly a belief at all which has not some influence upon the actions of him
who holds it. He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon
the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not
realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes
to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action
at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that
no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of
the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly
insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it
before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost
thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our
character for ever.
And no one man's belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone.
Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been
created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and 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. An awful privilege, and an awful
responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live.
In the two supposed cases which have been considered, it has been judged wrong to
believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding
investigation. The reason of this judgment is not far to seek: it is that in both these cases
the belief held by one man was of great importance to other men. But forasmuch as no
belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the
believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we
have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever. Belief, that
sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious
working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for
humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and
waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning.
Then it helps to bind men together, and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is
desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and
private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our
life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our
kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us.
Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his beliefs
with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy
object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.
It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden
duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent
sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every
hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit
society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can
escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.
It is true that this duty is a hard one, and the doubt which comes out of it is often a very
bitter thing. It leaves us bare and powerless where we thought that we were safe and
strong. To know all about anything is to know how to deal with it under all
circumstances. We feel much happier and more secure when we think we know precisely
what to do, no matter what happens, than when we have lost our way and do not know
where to turn. And if we have supposed ourselves to know all about anything, and to be
capable of doing what is fit in regard to it, we naturally do not like to find that we are
really ignorant and powerless, that we have to begin again at the beginning, and try to
learn what the thing is and how it is to be dealt with--if indeed anything can be learnt
about it. It is the sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge that makes men
desirous of believing, and afraid of doubting.
This sense of power is the highest and best of pleasures when the belief on which it is
founded is a true belief, and has been fairly earned by investigation. For then we may
justly feel that it is common property, and hold good for others as well as for ourselves.
Then we may be glad, not that I have learned secrets by which I am safer and stronger,
but that we men have got mastery over more of the world; and we shall be strong, not for
ourselves but in the name of Man and his strength. But if the belief has been accepted on
insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by
giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is
stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such
beliefs as from pestilence, which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the
rest of the town. What would be thought of one who, for the sake of a sweet fruit, should
deliberately run the risk of delivering a plague upon his family and his neighbours?
And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad
action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards.
Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-
control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely
enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions
which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and
wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and
supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made
permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done from the mere
transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the
money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself
dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should
become a den of thieves, for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to
do evil, that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done
evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on
insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true
after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help
doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society
is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it
should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for
then it must sink back into savagery.
The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a
credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. Habitual want of
care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what
is told to me. Men speak the truth of one another when each reveres the truth in his own
mind and in the other's mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I
myself am careless about it, when I believe thing because I want to believe them, and
because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry, "Peace," to me, when
there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of
falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle
of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my
neighbours ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he
lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they
are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards,
keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely
avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call into question or discuss it,
and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing
it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.
If this judgment seems harsh when applied to those simple souls who have never known
better, who have been brought up from the cradle with a horror of doubt, and taught that
their eternal welfare depends on what they believe, then it leads to the very serious
question, Who hath made Israel to sin?
It may be permitted me to fortify this judgment with the sentence of Milton--
A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says
so, or the assembly so determine, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true,
yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.[1]
And with this famous aphorism of Coleridge--
He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth, will proceed by loving his own
sect or Church better than Christianity, and end loving himself better than all.[2]
Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as
finally settled. It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered
by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete.
"But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which
would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or
even able to understand the nature of the arguments."
Then he should have no time to believe.
II. THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY
Are we then to become universal sceptics, doubting everything, afraid always to put one
foot before the other until we have personally tested the firmness of the road? Are we to
deprive ourselves of the help and guidance of that vast body of knowledge which is daily
growing upon the world, because neither we nor any other one person can possibly test a