How to use philosophy to figure out what to believe and what not
Miscellaneous / / May 25, 2022
Philosophers offer at least two different approaches to solving complex ethical issues.
Imagine that you are sitting on the couch and watching TV. And suddenly you hear a knock on the door. These are the cops who have come to arrest your loved one for murder. You will be shocked by the accusation, because he was always affectionate and attentive to you. You simply cannot imagine that this person is capable of committing such a terrible crime. However, the evidence is pretty strong: your loved one's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. He denies everything and tells you: “I know the situation looks disgusting, but it's not my fault, trust me! If you don't believe me, then who will?
Think about how you would such a situation: would you take the side of a loved one or would you consider the evidence a convincing argument? There is no correct answer to this question, but philosophy offers at least two points of view on such ethical dilemmas: evidentialism and pragmatism.
What Evidentialism Offers
To believe is to accept something as true. And figure it out where is the truth, irrefutable arguments or facts help. That is why some philosophers believe that conclusive evidence is the only thing that should determine what we believe. This view is called evidentialism.
His supporters will look at the situation as disinterested observers. This means that they will believe objective evidence, and not their subjective feelings, that a loved one is not guilty.
At the same time, some evidentialists believe that it is necessary to be guided by evidence because this is the most reasonable and rational approach. Others follow the reasoning of the English philosopher William Clifford: in his opinion, relying on objective arguments are also important from a moral point of view, since they not only help us to make right moral choice, but also avoid being dishonest with ourselves. This is what we manifest when we ignore the evidence.
So, from the point of view of evidentialism, we must believe the police and admit that our loved one is guilty of a terrible crime.
What does pragmatism offer?
According to this philosophical theory, we can believe in something even in the absence of hard evidence. Pragmatism suggests that in the situation described above, many factors must be taken into account, including the chance that a loved one is still innocent, and your marriage it will crack if you doubt the honesty of your spouse. And that's not counting his feelings - just imagine what it's like when even the closest people don't believe you!
Pragmatists are convinced that, given all these factors, accepting something in the absence of evidence is the right choice from a moral point of view. This is because such a choice is in our interests: it will help support a partner and save a marriage. This means that in the story of the murder, it is more likely that you need to believe a loved one who claims that he is not guilty.
What do you lean more towards: evidentialism or pragmatism? Share your opinion in the comments.
Read also🧐
- Why You Shouldn't Always Believe Common Truths
- The main rule of life taught by Kant's philosophy
- 5 Things You Can Learn From Cynic Philosophers
- Why do we believe guesses and rumors more than statistics