Theories And Their Limitations
Do we need to retain a multiplicity of theories to understand the world?
We should use multiple theories in everyday life so we can truly understand the world we live in, as a theory on its own is limited. Two areas of knowledge that show the need for a multiplicity of theories are ethics and the human sciences. A theory is difficult to define because its function varies. In the human sciences, it can be defined as a composition of ideas based on evidence, attempting to explain and predict a natural phenomenon. For it to remain valid, it needs to be tested repeatedly for consistent results. In ethics, a theory is a set of rules that are used to guide our judgment of what is right and wrong, also known as our morals, and attempts to explain them and cannot be proved or disproved. In ethics, I will look at the limitations of the theory of Utilitarianism and Kantian duty ethics, to demonstrate that one theory isn’t enough to make moral decisions. In the human sciences, I will look at psychology and examine how using one theory alone can lead to reductionist findings to demonstrate that a plethora of theories needs to be used to adequately understand human behavior.
An area of knowledge that shows the need for a multiplicity of theories is ethics. One ethical theory that is limited is the theory of Utilitarianism because it doesn’t take into account the motives of a person and ignores an individual’s rights. The theory of Utilitarianism states that the most moral action is the one that maximizes overall happiness for the greatest amount of people. However, if an event maximizes overall happiness without taking into account the motives and individual rights more harm than good could occur. In English class, we read the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller. The play is about the Salem witch trials which took place during the years 1962–1963. Without any hard evidence, people accused innocent girls of being witches which resulted in the judge sentencing them to death (Miller, 1976). Sentencing the girls to death probably brought pain and misery to the family and relatives. However, the majority of the society might have felt socially, psychologically, or even religiously more at ease, when they believed that the threat of the community, posed by what they thought was witchcraft, was removed. Thus, in this way, overall happiness in the community would be maximized while ignoring the individual rights of the girls. In addition, the ulterior motives of the community for putting the girls on trial weren’t taken into account. The accusation may have come from a personal vendetta, rather than the belief that the girls were malignant witches. In this way, Utilitarianism can be used to set us back into the past of crusades and other trials where individual human value wasn’t respected.
Kantian’s duty ethics is another ethical theory that contrary to Utilitarianism, takes into account human respect and dignity, however, it’s also limited as it cannot resolve conflicts between duties. Kantian’s duty ethics is concerned with whether people’s actions fulfill their duty. Kant argued that people shouldn’t take advantage of each other because each person has a value of human dignity. That is avoided through the categorical imperative which states that one has a duty to act if the action can be universalized. Actions can be universalized by asking ourselves: Would the world be a better place if everyone was doing this action? Looking at individual rights in the example of the Salem witch trials, would the world be a better place if everyone falsely accused each other without any hard evidence? This is what happened in the trials, resulting in the burning of innocent girls. No, it would not because it would create a world in which there is no trust, honesty, or privacy, as anything said or done, could be used against a person due to the lack of a fair trial and any real evidence presented. A similar world that many individuals found themselves in during Communism during the show trials of the Soviet Union. For this reason, more than one theory is needed to understand the world. If there was only the theory of Utilitarianism, then the individual human value may not be respected. However, Kantian’s duty ethics is also limited. It’s unable to resolve conflicts between duties. How could a person resolve a conflict between two duties such as never telling a lie and avoiding harm to someone? For instance, if one was hiding a Jew in the house and a Nazi soldier asked the person if they were hiding a Jew in the house, who would the person have a duty to? The person would have two duties. To say the truth to the soldier, and to avoid harming the Jew, so which duty would the person pick? This is a conflict of duty Kantian’s duty ethics doesn’t resolve. Kantian’s duty ethics states lying is a universal wrong because it deceives people. However, it doesn’t take into account the fact that not all lies are equal or the motives of lying. Lying to save someone’s life from a terrorist is different than if a person lies to successfully commit academic dishonesty in school. Kantian’s duty ethics doesn’t explain what to do when duties conflict, and in this way is limited. Therefore, there needs to be a multiplicity of theories in order to properly decide upon the right moral choice of action.
On the contrary, having a multiplicity of ethical theories can be confusing and instead of guiding decisions, may only bring uncertainty and indecisiveness to an individual. For instance, if a group of friends is hosting a surprise birthday party for the celebrant then according to duty ethics lying to them would be wrong because it would be deceiving them, and a world in which anyone could deceive would be harmful. However, according to Utilitarianism, lying to the celebrant would be the right thing to do because it would maximize overall happiness since the celebrant would be happy at having a birthday party and the group of friends would be happy at being able to organize a nice event for another person. Hence, in this situation, having a multiplicity of ethical theories makes it difficult to decide what is moral, because what is right and wrong changes based on the theory.
The second area of knowledge that shows the need for a multiplicity of theories is the human sciences, specifically psychology which tries to explain the different social responses of human behavior through three main approaches: social, cognitive, and biological, that attempt to give a plausible reason for human behavior through different perspectives. The approaches interact with each other, however, when a theory is only focused on one approach, the findings may become too reductionist, limiting the theory. One psychological theory that holds limitations is Darwin’s theory of natural selection because it may be viewed as too reductionist when applied to human evolutionary behavior. The theory is part of the biological approach, which argues that there are inner physiological origins of human behavior. Darwin’s Theory of natural selection states that individuals with heritable traits that are better suited to the environment will survive (Darwin, 1859). Thus, the behavior which will most improve our chances of handing down our genes and producing healthy offsprings will continue. In psychology, a study by Wedekind found that women are more attracted to the smell of a partner different from their own smell due to the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) genes, that are responsible for the immune system. Wedekind argues that the reason for this is, to maximize the immune system of the potential offspring (Wedekind, 1995). However, this argument is very reductionist. We can’t assume that women choose their mating partners just by the way they smell, as it disregards other qualities including personality, respect, stability, and life goal similarity. In this way, Darwin’s theory may be viewed as too reductionist when applied to behaviors in psychology as cognitive and social factors also play a role in human behavior. For this reason, all three approaches need to be used to understand human behavior.
However, on the contrary, one could argue that there isn’t a need for a multiplicity of theories if there is one theory that has high levels of credibility. For instance, in psychology, Bandura’s Social Learning Theory proposes that new behaviors, such as aggression, can be acquired by imitating and observing others through the five steps of attention, retention, reproduction, motivation, and imitation. The theory is supported by experiments with high internal validity in which a causational relationship is established (Bandura, 1977). The theory, however, is also supported by studies with high ecological validity, meaning findings can be generalized to real-world settings, for example, the theory can be used to explain how children acquire gender roles by observing parents (Fagot, 1978). For these reasons, there isn’t a need to propose another theory about learning behavior because one efficient and highly credible theory already exists. However, even though the theory holds high levels of credibility the studies supporting each, have at least one limitation the largest one being that it’s difficult to study a specific social factor without the influence of biological and other cognitive factors.
In conclusion, although, there are times when having a multiplicity of theories may bring confusion such as in the lense of ethics, or when having a multiplicity of theories doesn’t seem to be necessary such as in the lense of the human sciences, it’s still visible that having a multiplicity of theories is important seeing that every theory on its own does indeed hold limitations.
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Darwin, Charles, 1859, On the Origin of Species, London: John Murray. New York: New York University Press.
Fagot, B. I. (1978). The Influence of Sex of Child on Parental Reactions to Toddler Children. Child Development, 49(2), 459. doi:10.2307/1128711
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible: A Play In Four Acts. New York : Penguin Books, 1976. Print.
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-Dependent Mate Preferences in Humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 260(1359), 245–249
