W.K. Clifford’s Argument on Evidentialism:
1. If all beliefs are important and affect mankind, then it is wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.
2. All beliefs are important and have some effect on mankind.
C. Therefore, it is wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.

My counterargument to Clifford:
1. If all beliefs are important and affect mankind, then it is wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.
2. My belief that coffee is the most delicious drink in the universe is not important and does not affect all of mankind.
C. Therefore, it is not wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence.

My belief that coffee is the most delicious drink in the universe has no rational grounding. It just so happens to be the drink that fires the right neurons causing me to most pleasure from drinking it. My enjoyment of coffee has no effect on mankind. If I were to have a good or bad cup of coffee, it would not result in me causing the downfall of western society and it also would not detract from my ability to contribute something monumental to society—such as curing cancer. I simply enjoy it, with no other reason to support my opinion. With this in mind, there does in fact exist an opinion without grounds, but does not affect all of mankind. Therefore, Clifford is making a hasty generalization in his argument.

Another issue I had with Clifford in “The Ethics of Belief” is when he wrote “when an action is done, it is right or wrong forever.” Looking back to my example about coffee, if I suddenly decide that I do not like coffee anymore, then it is not wrong forever. Clifford’s statement prevents people from changing their minds. If his principle were applied to, where participants constantly evaluate arguments and ideas, there would be no room for intellectual growth as a result of an analysis of other ideas. It would be extremely difficult to learn and develop new ideas.