Paradigm Shift(s)

I don't like the phrase "Paradigm shift" because it sounds so geeky, and so grandiose. A Paradigm shift is simply a change in your thinking which widely alters your view. A classic example is the change from belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe to it being a rather ordinary planet around a rather ordinary star around a rather ordinary galaxy. A paradigm shift from the special nature of where we are to the mundane nature of where we are.

I'm going to quote a couple of extremely familiar passages and examine them for the paradigms in which they came to be, and the differences between them.

Our Father who art in heaven,

hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us,

and lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

This is of course the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus is reputed to have taught his followers. Let us look at the paradigm within which this is formed. It starts with praise of The Lord. In the ancient world, and for most of time, societies have been controlled by one person, with complete power, who could arbitrarily ruin your life. It was very important to keep that person happy. It then hopes that the wishes of this powerful entity will be fulfilled before going onto the wishes of those making the entreaty.

The first wish is that the person gets fed. The second is to be forgiven for any mistakes or transgressions that might be made, at least as much as the person is willing to forgive. Essentially begging not to be punished for minor indiscretions. The final part is to not be led astray from what would be the right things to do, and to be free from harm.

In summary the paradigm within the Lord's prayer is of a peasant wishing not to upset the person in power, to not be arbitrarily punished, to be able to eat, and to avoid calamity. This is the paradigm of the ancient world in which power was used arbitrarily, where the views of the common person were irrelevant, and all that you might hope for was to get something to eat and to stay out of trouble.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is of course a portion of The Declaration of Independence. The paradigm within which this piece came to be written is clearly very different from The Lord's Prayer. For a start it begins with the incredible to the ancient world assertion that it is self-evident that people are created equal and that as a result they have rights. From the paradigm of the ancient world this would be considered ludicrous. Now what are the rights? They are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the ancient world you begged to be free of evil, rather than it being assumed that you have a right to be free of evil.

Furthermore, the text goes on to say that if the government it has does not suit the needs and wishes of the people it governs, it can be removed or altered until it does. In other words, if your government does not let you be free and happy, the government should be changed. This is clearly an enormous paradigm shift in terms of governance.

So I ask, is there anybody who doesn't believe that this shift from totalitarian, authoritarianism to a collective government emphasizing the needs of those being governed has been a great and wonderful thing? I think it is self-evident that such a shift has been a good thing. However, I wish to point out that I don't this shift in governance that has been such a success has spread to other areas quite as well.

Let us take morality. Under the ancient world's system what was moral was what authority said was moral and if you disagreed you were stoned to death. In Jefferson's model morality is a system that enables people to have life, liberty and pursue happiness. Imagine a politician who has cheated on their wife. The vast majority of Americans believe that person has been morally wrong, and this because infidelity is wrong, and that because they have been taught that infidelity is wrong. The Jeffersonian model would ask whether the infidelity has altered the life, liberty or the opportunity to pursue happiness? It hasn't reduced life, or liberty, and while it may reduce the pursuit of happiness for one person it seems to increase it for others. as such, under a modern paradigm, infidelity would not be immoral. Furthermore, it would then be within the rights of people to alter morality accordingly.

Let us take medicine. The present model is that there is something called "health" and something called "illness", and that the role of medicine is to protect us from illness. It is exactly analogous to the ancient world's plea to authority. Health is being without calamity. However, how we feel is much more complicated than whether we have an illness or not. Taking the Jeffersonian model what medicine should be for is to increase life, increase liberty (capability/functionality) and increase the ability to pursue happiness. This means that health isn't merely about not being sick, it's about feeling good and being able to do a lot of things. Under this new paradigm people who are not unhappy should be seeking medical help to become more happy. Those who are not sick should be getting medical health to be fitter, stronger, more skilled with their bodies. Furthermore, if the medical community does not assist with this endeavor then the population should be within their rights to alter the system.

Sam Harris has written a book called The Moral Landscape in which he outlines the position that it is possible to determine morality through scientific study. This comes from the idea that morality is what produces the greatest amount of human flourishing, which essentially comes very close to the greatest amounts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that it is possible to determine what actions have these results. It seems to me that society as a whole is still trying to make the paradigm shift from the ancient world to a modern world. A modern world would be one in which a clear look at what makes the greatest differences in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be the basis of the great decisions human beings make. Such a clear look would be the basis of politics, morality, medicine, economics, philosophy, art and so on. In such cases where the current situation can be seen to be improved through concrete steps it would be the right of the population of a modern world to require these steps to be taken.