2024-08-0214:19 Status: Tags: Antivaxx Religio-politics Epistemology Ethics
Discourse
Epistemic responsibility is the responsibility we have regarding our beliefs.
It is wrong always, and everywhere for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.â - W.K. Clifford
Suppose there was a shipowner who knew their ship was decrepit. Knowing that there would soon be a voyage, he rationalized that replacing and repairing the ship (so it can successfully/safely make the voyage) would be too expensive. Thus, hiding this information from the crew as they failed their voyage. He collected his insurance on the ship and no one blamed him. In this thought experiment Clifford not only argues that it was the shipownerâs fault for their deaths but also argues that even if they did make it across, his ignorance should be tried:
âHe was guilty of accepting a belief without sufficient evidence ⌠and whether that actually leads to [harm][Harm Principle], he has still done wrong, epistemically and morallyâ
One may critique his conceptualization of epistemic responsibility by positing that one has the right to believe what they please as long as they are not causing harm. However, he argues that:
âThere is no such thing as a private belief. Because we all talk about our beliefs - some of us do it a lot - and it causes our beliefs to spread.
(Even if not explicitly mentioned, beliefs can be perpetuated through actions, implicit dialogue and tacit/dogmatic assumptions). For instance, if a sexist knew it was socially counterproductive to their goals to overtly share their beliefs, they can still demonstrate a set of actions/support aligned beliefs: Letting others know that they are a sexist. This is particularly prevalent with Dog whistling. He further argues that unless there is some sort of evidence for that belief, one is morally obligated to refrain from that belief.
This is how he goes on to later argue against a public expression of religion:
âBelief in a God whose existence canât be proven was simply blind faithâ Leap of faith âAnd blind faith leads a person to ignore other facts and arguments, causing them to live an unexamined, unthoughtful life.â Ignorance is bliss He described this as âone long sin against mankind.â
Clifford was critiqued by William James argued that some beliefs can be held morally even if they lacked evidence.
When you adopt a belief, you have options, and the nature of those options can basically determine the moral defensibility of the beliefs you end up holding.
He believed that the options one has when choosing a belief can be:
- Alive = a belief you can see yourself having (e.g. you like pumpkins and lattes, and you can see yourself liking pumpkin spiced lattes or âŚ
- Dead = a belief you canât imagine holding (e.g. liking a dog food latte)
- Forced = where you are forced to make a choice (e.g. stay in or go out)
- Unforced = where you are not forced to make a choice (e.g. eggs or toast)
- Trivial = a choice that does not make a large difference in life
- Momentous = a choice that stands to radically change your life for the better
Though James agreed with Clifford that if evidence can be found, you have an obligation to find it, if there is no such case (again how would you know) based on these criteria, he argues that as long as a belief is momentous, alive, and forced it is permissible to hold that belief (such as religion).
TLDR: If I canât know, Iâll maximize my pleasure according to my beliefs.
This justifies religion (life changing for people, you either believe in God or you donât (False dichotomy), and you can imagine the good itâll bring), but also justifies anti-vaxx sentiment. Also, what constitutes are âsufficient evidence,â why is mediocre to live a life of [ignorance][Ignorance is bliss].