It is not right to believe without sufficient evidence. According to Clifford, a certain belief is right or wrong depending on the origin of that belief. He further observes that it is not possible to separate a belief from the action it suggests (Clifford, n.p.). Therefore, it is not possible to condemn one and not the other (Clifford, n.p.). A belief is separable from the action it causes, based on the grounds of such a belief.
A belief should be based on the evidence available, not on the past experience. For example, in the case given, a shipowner went on and sent a ship on a voyage, having known that the ship was not in perfect condition (Clifford, n.p.). The shipowner knew that it had some defects from the time of its construction, and thus needed to be repaired before it could carry emigrants. However, the shipowner went on and ignored these facts, allowing the emigrants to board the defective ship, which later developed a problem while on the sea, causing their death (Clifford, n.p.). In this case, the shipowner believed that the ship could finish the journey safely since it had undertaken other journeys in the past, and succeeded.
Therefore, according to Clifford, it is not possible to separate the belief of the shipowner, from the action of causing emigrants death in the sea. However, it is possible to separate these two aspects because; although the shipowner had reasons to believe that the ship could undertake the journey safely, he had other reasons to believe that it was extremely dangerous to allow the journey. Through understanding that the voyage entailed carrying emigrants, it was not right to assume the dangers associated with a defective ship. Thus, although the shipowner believed the journey would be safe based on past experiences, he ought to have based his belief on tangible evidence.
In this case, it is evident that a defective ship has higher chances of developing problems while on a journey than a perfect ship. The shipowner knew this very well but opted to ignore that fact. Although catastrophes occur and affect ships that are in perfect condition, allowing a defective ship to undertake a journey served to increase the risks involved. Therefore, it was right for the shipowner to have the ship repaired before allowing it to undertake the journey.
Consequently, it is possible to separate the belief held by the shipowner from his actions. While the belief is informed by past experiences that the ship had undertaken safe journeys, the action of allowing the ship to undertake the journey was informed by negligence. By assuming the risks associated with having a defective ship in the sea, the shipowner negligently put the lives of the emigrants at risk.
Therefore, the opinion, that it is not possible to condemn a belief and not condemn an action is questionable (Clifford, n.p.). This is because, a belief can be informed by past experiences, but action should be informed by sufficient evidence. It was not wrong for the shipowner to believe that the ship will undertake the journey safely, based on his past experiences on the same. However, it was wrong for him to engage in a negligent action of allowing a defective ship to carry emigrants. Therefore, the shipowner had an opportunity to take a different action from the informed by his belief, and base his action on evidence. This evidence would have been derived from repairing the ship.
Works Cited
Clifford, William. The Ethics of Belief. 1877. The Secular. Web.