Our states of belief are determined by external factors, for example, perceived complexity and primitive ethics are an interesting topic and everyone lives according to their own thoughts and ways. Everyone lives by a different code. The difference between morality and ethics is that morality is primarily about making the right choices, while ethics is correct reasoning. In WK Clifford's essay “The Ethics of Faith,” he argues that if only on the basis of insufficient evidence, then it is unethical. In this essay I will remain undecided as to what Clifford is trying to say. I agree and disagree with some of his views. Some I must say are unethical and some are reasonable. What Clifford is trying to portray is interesting. Especially because it comes from a religious background. And reading about his new discovery is quite interesting. I'll start by agreeing with Clifford that we should have enough evidence before making a hypothesis. But I don't think that just because we don't have enough evidence that it's automatically wrong. I think we need to look at the foundation first. And we have to look at the foundations that we know and if there are reasons to doubt, then I will have to doubt the principles. And I think that knowledge doesn't depend on things that I don't yet know exist. So how can we say that if there is not enough evidence to support a statement, why is it considered wrong? I find this illogical because just because there isn't enough evidence yet doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not considered right or wrong. We don't have enough evidence to make it wrong. And we cannot assume anything until there is sufficient guidance to do otherwise. In the essay "The Ethics of Faith"... in the middle of the paper... their idea of ​​right and wrong is just an opinion. And the opinions are rejected. Just because Clifford has no faith, doesn't mean he should tell everyone not to make any decisions without sufficient concrete evidence. The reason is that people should not lie to themselves. The man who lies to himself does not understand himself. I think Clifford made a mistake in saying that anything without sufficient evidence is considered wrong. As reasonable people, we have the ability to decide which of our desires to act on. I agree that we have to have evidence to believe something, but I disagree that if we don't have enough evidence then it's wrong. We cannot say this without having sufficient evidence that this statement is false. And it all depends on what you believe, because what you believe is what you feel.