Some Generic Requirements To Be Observed For All Writing Ass ✓ Solved

Some Generic Requirements To Be Observed For All Writing Assignments I

Some generic requirements to be observed for all Writing Assignments include that all papers must: Defend a thesis and should proceed according to the following format: Thesis, Argument, Objection(s), Response(s), Conclusion. Include citations to the primary required class readings. These and any additional sources must be properly cited using MLA format. Fall within the following length requirements: words. Use a standard 10-12 pt. font and be double spaced. Critical Writing Assignments 1 and 2 are due no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of Modules 3 and 6 respectively. (These Assignments may be linked to Turnitin.) Information on MLA Citation style can be found here: Recall Clifford’s evidentialist argument from Module 2 and contrast Clifford’s position with one of the nonevidentialist positions encountered in either Module 5 or Module 6. Decide which position, evidentialism or nonevidentialism, more closely aligns with your own point of view and argue for that position.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Title: Evaluating Clifford’s Evidentialism Versus Nonevidentialist Perspectives on Moral Reasoning

Introduction

The philosophical debate between evidentialism and nonevidentialism centers on the basis upon which individuals should hold beliefs and make moral judgments. Clifford’s evidentialist stance asserts that beliefs must be proportioned to the evidence available, emphasizing the importance of empirical proof in moral reasoning. Contrasting this, nonevidentialist perspectives argue that beliefs can be justified based on practical, emotional, or cultural grounds even without sufficient empirical evidence. This paper will analyze Clifford’s evidentialist argument and compare it with a nonevidentialist position, specifically that of William James, to determine which perspective aligns more closely with my own worldview.

Clifford’s Evidentialist Position

William Kingdon Clifford famously argued that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (Clifford, 1887). He maintained that belief without adequate evidence could lead to moral and societal harm, emphasizing personal responsibility in evidence-based belief formation. According to Clifford, moral decisions should be grounded in empirical evidence, which posits that blind faith or wishful thinking can have destructive consequences. For Clifford, a moral community built on evidence-based beliefs fosters responsibility, trust, and rationality.

Contrasting Nonevidentialist Position

William James, a prominent advocate of nonevidentialism, argued for a “will to believe” in certain circumstances where evidence is insufficient but the decision is of existential importance. James contended that moral and religious beliefs often cannot rely solely on empirical evidence; instead, they involve genuine options that are forced, living, and momentous. He believed that positive pragmatic reasons could justify moral beliefs even in the absence of conclusive evidence (James, 1896). James’s perspective promotes a moral flexibility that acknowledges human limitations in achieving absolute certainty.

Personal Reflection and Position

In weighing Clifford’s evidentialist approach against James’s nonevidentialism, I find that my own philosophical stance aligns more closely with James. While empirical evidence is crucial in scientific reasoning, moral and existential decisions often require adopting beliefs that cannot be fully justified through evidence alone. I believe that moral responsibility includes pragmatic considerations and emotional commitments, which can be justified pragmatically rather than evidentially. However, I also recognize the importance of evidence in informing moral judgments to avoid dogmatism and to foster responsibility in belief formation.

Conclusion

Both Clifford’s evidentialism and James’s nonevidentialism offer valuable insights into moral reasoning. Clifford underscores the importance of empirical evidence in maintaining moral integrity, while James highlights the necessity of pragmatic acceptance of beliefs in the face of uncertainty. Personally, I lean toward James's perspective, which allows for a more flexible and human-centered approach to moral belief formation, acknowledging that not all moral convictions can be justified solely through evidence. This approach encourages responsible yet compassionate moral decision-making in complex human contexts.

References

• Clifford, William Kingdon. "The Ethics of Belief." Popular Science Monthly, 1887.
• James, William. "The Will to Believe." Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1896.
• Audi, Robert. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge, 2010.
• Kvanvig, Jonathan. "The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Truth." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2003.
• Pritchard, Duncan. "The Nature and Value of Knowledge." Philosophical Studies, 2008.
• Sosa, Ernest. "Reflective Knowledge and Action." Mind & Language, 2007.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. "On the Genealogy of Morality." Vintage, 1989.
• Frankfurt, Harry. "The Importance of Truth." The Journal of Philosophy, 2008.
• Taylor, Charles. "Sources of the Self." Harvard University Press, 1989.
• Singer, Peter. "Practical Ethics." Cambridge University Press, 2011.