You're sitting on the couch watching TV, when you hear a knock at the door. The police have just come to arrest your spouse for murder. This allegation comes as a complete shock.
In your experience, your partner has always been gentle and loving, and you cannot imagine committing a gruesome murder of them. But the evidence is grim: His fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
Your spouse insists they are innocent.
"I know it sounds bad," he says, "but you have to believe me! If you don't, who will?" Should you believe your spouse, even though the evidence against them seems damning? Think for a moment about what you would believe in this situation.
This dilemma is part of what philosophers call the ethics of belief: a field of study that explores how we ought to form beliefs, and whether we have moral duties to believe certain things.
The question here is not about what you should do, such as whether or not you should find your spouse guilty in court. After all, you won't be on the jury at their trial! Rather, it is about what you believe to be true.
So, what factors should you consider?
Perhaps the most obvious is your proof.
After all, to believe something is to believe it to be true. And evidence, by definition, is all information that helps us determine what is true. From this, some philosophers conclude that evidence is the only thing you need to believe.
This view is called evidentialism, and a strict evidentiary would say that it doesn't matter if the accused is your spouse. You must evaluate the evidence from an unbiased, objective perspective.
Taking the perspective of an impartial third party, your judgment of your spouse's character is a relevant consideration. But finding their fingerprints at the crime scene is certainly stronger evidence than that.
So, from an evidentiary standpoint, you must either believe that your spouse is guilty, or remain undecided at best. Some philosophers treat evidence simply as the point of view that is more reasonable to believe.
But others, such as the 19th-century proofreader W.K.
Clifford, believes that following the evidence is also morally important. One argument for this theory is that having well-informed, valid beliefs is often crucial to determining moral behavior.
Another argument is that there is something unethical about being dishonest, and refusing to follow the evidence is a way of being dishonest with yourself. However, there are probably other ethical factors at play.
Even though the evidence against your spouse is strong, there is still a possibility that they are truly innocent. Think for a moment what it would feel like to be innocent, and have no one believe you—not even your own partner!
By not trusting your spouse, you run the risk of seriously hurting them in their hour of greatest need. Also, consider how a lack of trust will affect your marriage.
It can be incredibly difficult to continue a loving relationship with someone you believe—or even strongly suspect—was a murderer. You may try to believe that your spouse is innocent, but can you really live that lie?
According to a theory of the ethics of belief called pragmatism,
these kinds of practical considerations can sometimes justify believing something even without strong evidence.
Some pragmatists even say that you are morally obligated to your spouse to believe them. But is it even possible to believe that your spouse is innocent just because you think it will be good for your relationship?
Or because you feel that you are responsible for the accused?
You may desperately want to believe they are innocent, but can you control your beliefs the same way you control your actions?
It seems you can't believe what you like when the truth is staring you in the face. But on the other hand, remember your spouse's request.
When we say things like this, we seem to be assuming that it is somehow possible to control our beliefs. So what do you think?
Can you control your beliefs?
And if so, what do you believe about your spouse?
Comments
Post a Comment