Among the very odd factors of a human’s nature is the search of rationality behind everything. Human mind is a complex thing which does not grasp until proper reasoning is provided for something and this quest for reason especially takes its position when sensitive issues such as religious beliefs are to be given credence. Ethicists further support this quest by presenting different ethical issues related to the formation of beliefs. These issues address the concerns of violating of norms if proper considerations have not been made. Ethics of belief are the standards which need to be kept in mind before the development of faith in something. This concept was presented for the first time in the 19 th century by William Kingdon Clifford. However, the teachings of this concept were being followed by the previous ethicists as well. The concept put forward basically focuses on the availability of evidence before any formation of belief. Clifford along with some other ethicists is the proponent of theory of Evidentialism. In his famous essay ‘locus Classicus’ (1879), Clifford put forward his principle ‘It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence’. He strongly pursued his idea that no matter the consequences (whether good or bad) brought about a belief, it is not right to base your belief in the first place on inadequate evidence. (p2) According to Locke, another proponent of Evidentialism, it is to ‘transgress against (one’s) own light’ to believe on something without finding the logic of it. He says that it is one’s own duty to avoid the inaccuracies, to search for the evidence that supports a belief so much so one can accept it. (p3) The ethical issues which arise when this theory is not followed are mainly categorized into three norms; epistemic, moral and pragmatic. Epistemic norms are about having proper knowledge and evidence before one believes in something. For instance, if you are taking a group of friends to a restaurant which you believe to be hygienic without prior investigation then you are violating epistemic norm. In addition to this, you are also violating moral norm which requires you to be considerate about your own and your friends’ health. Pragmatic norm is related to having some evidence about one thing and yet believing something else which is more practical and feasible. For instance, if you know that your maid has stolen meager amount of money which she disagrees and yet you know how much you need that maid for the household chores, the pragmatic norm asks you to believe her for not stealing the money. These three categories have certain relationships with each other. The positive relationship is when one norm automatically leads to the following of the second them. For instance, in the above example of taking your friends to a restaurant, you have to follow epistemic norm and the moral norm almost becomes obligatory. However, one is presented with a dilemma when the negative relationship among these norms takes its place. The person may get confused when one norm is leading to the violation of other. For instance, in the above example of decision about keeping the maid, if you keep her, pragmatic