The purpose of this article is to summarize a discussion of a new idea brought by William Clifford, evidentialism, and William James' response (or criticism) of this concept in a discussion between the two philosophers. With Clifford's text "The Ethics of Belief" and James's response in "The Will to believe", the main theme is whether it is morally wrong to believe things without evidence, or whether it is acceptable in some circumstances. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In his text William Clifford made perhaps one of the most striking defenses of what is now called evidentialism. According to Clifford, “It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything on the basis of insufficient evidence”, it is immoral to do so and it is our duty to find the evidence. Evidence is the main component that justifies belief, so it should not be ignored. According to Clifford, people are inclined to believe things without concrete evidence because they are blinded by their own desire and hope. At the beginning of his text, Clifford presents us with the example of a boy who believed that his ship would make it through one last voyage, contrary to what others told him, and put the lives of everyone on board at risk because he believed he was right. Clifford's example shows us how believing something without evidence can be stubborn and selfish. When we allow ourselves to believe things without sufficient justification, we become more vulnerable, making it easier for people to be dishonest, even when they have good intentions towards us. Comfort can be one of the hardest things to deal with when trying to change someone's mind. How could we help someone if they don't want to be helped because they feel comfortable where they are? When two people are in a relationship, for example, and one of them has cheated, how might we help the other person who would rather believe? in falsehood? In this case the desire to believe in something because you want it to be the truth can be harmful. Everyone has the ability to change, question, or doubt their beliefs, but according to Clifford, even when someone doesn't want to think differently, they can still think about their actions before acting on them. We all suffer when a bad deed is done, however we suffer even more when a gullible mind is supported and false beliefs are fixed in their minds. For Clifford, someone who has no time to understand or question their beliefs should not have the right to believe. Believing something without sufficient evidence can cause harm to ourselves and society. If someone believes in X, there may be no harm to the individual, however, it may become a problem in the bigger picture. Even if X ends up being true, simply believing something because we are told to can damage our ability to ask questions and consequently hold false beliefs. For this reason, Clifford explains that it is dangerous to believe lies, however the biggest problem a society could face is becoming gullible. It is known that for some things such as religion and faith it can be difficult to find good evidence, so Clifford proposes to believe what is well justified, since believing in falsehoods is worse than not accepting the truth. Some people, on the other hand, may think the opposite. William James's response to Clifford's argument is that there are some situations in which believing something without sufficient evidence is rationally acceptable and not immoral. James argues that our beliefs are consequences of hypotheses in.