Final answer:
The 'preponderance of the evidence' is the standard of proof required in most civil cases, where the plaintiff must convince the court that their allegations are likely true based on the weight of the evidence. It is less demanding compared to the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard in criminal cases, which requires the elimination of reasonable doubts concerning the defendant's guilt.
Step-by-step explanation:
The standard of proof in an ethics hearing is referred to as a "preponderance of the evidence." This standard is commonly applied in civil court cases, where the plaintiff must demonstrate that the evidence tips the balance in their favor, making it more likely than not that their claims are true. While in criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is significantly higher, requiring that the jury not have any reasonable doubts about the defendant's guilt.
Preponderance of the evidence does not require the elimination of all doubts, but rather that the evidence on one side is more convincing than the evidence on the other side. For example, in cases where claims against the laws of nature are made, such as the appearance of a figure from religious history, the evidence should be substantial to challenge the consistent observation that such laws are not violated, as posited by philosophers like Hume.
In summary, the preponderance of the evidence standard is less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it still requires a greater weight of evidence in favor of the plaintiff's position to be successful in a civil litigation.