Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
For example:
- The development from a foetus to a person. There is no definitive moment where a foetus becomes a person: it is a gradual process. Perhaps the true spectrum here is non-person to person with foetus, child, comatose person and normal adult etc all a points on this scale, with many factors contributing
- The difference between philosophy and science.
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
- The difference between healthy and sick.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
No comments:
Post a Comment