Willing and KnowingTheoretical: This paper examines W. K. Clifford's great paper, The Ethics of Belief, and the criticalness of his utilization of the locution purposely and energetically with regards to ethically unreliable obliviousness. It is contended that this locution can highlight an exceptionally unpretentious and significant qualification in the premisses of morally dependable conviction development. An examination of resolved obliviousness is then given. It is contended that, carefully, there is nothing of the sort as resolved numbness: what is called resolute obliviousness in normal language is only the wonders of getting oneself purposely to think something by readily and intentionally adjusting the proof for one's conviction, as opposed to the certified marvel of getting oneself energetically to think something against the proof. The previous marvel isn't, be that as it may, ethically approvable. Subsequently, resolution of conviction is certifiably not an important state of ethically flippant obliviousness.1. There is an extremely well known entry in W. K. Clifford's exemplary paper The Ethics of Belief where Clifford portrays a shipowner who hoodwinks himself to accept that his boat is fit for sailing by 'intentionally and enthusiastically' overlooking the proof despite what might be expected, ie. by 'intentionally and eagerly' changing the evidential circumstance that decides the substance of his conviction. As indicated by Clifford, the shipowner's psychological conduct is dishonest. He has no privilege to accept that the boat is secure on such proof as is before him. He is intentionally and readily oblivious of the genuine state of the boat and, as a result, conveys moral obligation regarding the outcomes of his shrewd perspective, results featured by the passings of travelers and group when the boat goes down.The subject of why Clifford utilizes the words 'intentionally and enthusiastically' when he depicts the manner by which the shipowner makes himself uninformed of the genuine state of the boat is huge not exclusively to Clifford's own hypothesis yet to the morals of faith by and large. One analyst (see Haack, approaching) has as of late contended that Clifford truly signifies 'unshakable numbness' and just needs nuance when he says 'purposely and readily'. The intention behind this understanding is the view that lone an individual who is determinedly uninformed of the proof against her conviction can convey moral obligation regarding the results of the conviction. Specifically, automatic numbness, as per this view, has no such impact. I question this understanding. Specifically, I question the possibility that the depiction of the shipowner's numbness as 'purposely and energetically' attempted is by one way or another more obvious than its portrayal as 'persistently' embraced.