William Clifford wrote in his book “The Ethics of Belief, Section I: The Duty of Inquiry” he said “There was once an island in which some of the inhabitants professed a religion teaching neither the doctrine of original sin nor that of eternal punishment.” A group of people got a suspicion of a teacher of a crime. These men gotten a suspicion of the teachers doing of legal. They gathered a together and sought out a to destroy them as their character. “They published grave accusations against individual citizens of the highest position and character”. They did that so much that they got the Commissioner of the land to do an inquiry on the accused teacher and they were found not guilty. These men acted on their on their emotions. “Commission was appointed to investigate the facts; but after the Commission had carefully inquired into all the evidence that could be got, it appeared that the accused were innocent.”
Since they believed in their gut, they were wrong even if they got it right. “Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion.” So, what he is saying that these men who acted soul on emotion and belief are wrong. Even if they were correct, they acted on emotion which is wrong is what William Clifford is trying to say. “Let us vary this case… suppose… investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty. Would this make any difference in the guilt of the accusers? Clearly not; the question is not whether their belief was true or false, but whether they entertained it on wrong grounds” He is kind of right. It’s like how cops need a warrant to search your house or at least probable cause. What these men messed the teachers lives, things like this still happens today people who act without thinking.
Pedro's blog 