The purpose of this article is to summarize a discussion of a new idea brought by William Clifford, evidentialism, and William James' response (or critique) to this concept. in a discussion between the two philosophers. With Clifford's text "The Ethics of Belief" and James' response in "The Will to Believe", the main topic is whether it is morally wrong to believe things without proof, or whether it is acceptable in certain circumstances. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In his text, William Clifford made perhaps one of the most surprising defenses of what is now called evidentialism. According to Clifford, “it is always wrong, anywhere 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 proof. Evidence is the main element that justifies belief and therefore should not be ignored. According to Clifford, people are prone to believe things without solid 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 guy who believed that his ship would make one last voyage, contrary to what everyone told him, and who put the lives of everyone on board in danger because he believed he was right. Clifford's example shows us how stubborn and selfish believing in something without proof can be. When we allow ourselves to believe things without sufficient justification, we become more vulnerable, making it easier for people to be dishonest, even if they have good intentions toward 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 could we help the other person whose lie they would rather believe? In this case, wanting to believe in something because you want it to be the truth can be harmful. Everyone has the opportunity to change, question, or doubt their beliefs, but according to Clifford, even if someone doesn't want to think otherwise, they can always think about their actions before acting on them. We all suffer when a wrong action is committed, but we suffer even more when a gullible mind is supported and false beliefs are ingrained in one's mind. For Clifford, someone who does not have the time to understand or question their beliefs should not be allowed to believe. Believing in something with insufficient evidence can cause harm to ourselves and society. If someone believes in X, there may be no harm to the individual, but it could become a problem as a whole. Even if For this reason, Clifford explains that it is dangerous to believe lies, but the biggest problem a society could face is becoming gullible. We know that some things like religion and faith can be difficult to find good evidence for, which is why Clifford proposes that we believe what is well justified, because believing lies is worse than not accepting the truth. On the other hand, some people might think otherwise. William James's response to Clifford's argument is that there is.