Here is a short 3-part series on Doxastic Responsibility covering William James and W.K. Clifford's views.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zV4HE0bIJss
Doxastic meaning "pertaining to ethics".
It occurs to me to be a wide-ranging problem, where in people espouse seemingly factual information which has shallow foundations in the individuals own understanding. Using primarily ethical considerations we often make factual claims which have an appearance of ethical justification. However, wherein the claims are not epistemically justified they may consequently be unethical.
Consider a Nazi gas-chamber attendant who believes solely in the ethics of his actions. His/her epistemic basis may be entirely flawed, but in the standard view that is secondary.
Quite frequently people make claims such as "Evolution has no evidence" believing this claim is ethical within the assumptions of their personal religion. Or "There is scientific evidence of Out-Of-Body Experiences", perhaps assuming ahead of the evidence that philosophical relativism is of paramount importance.
This is maybe another way of saying "Truth über alles".