Better and Worse Worldviews
It is considered good manners to respect and value worldviews different from your own. However, we must acknowledge that some worldviews are simply worse than others. The existence of idealistic suicide bombers and genocides compels us. What then are the criteria for distinguishing better from worse worldviews? The presence or absence of senseless violence and oppression is obvious, but in this article we want to go beyond ethics and look for additional ways to rank and evaluate. And while we don’t mean to detract from tolerant and kind worldviews, those looking to improve their own picture of reality will benefit from having some criteria to compare and contrast.1
This Substack often asks seven questions of a worldview (fragment) to determine how total the worldview is. A short recap of these seven questions2:
What is?
Where does it all come from?
Where are we going?
What is good and what is bad?
What must we do?
What is true and what is false?
What makes life meaningful?
Indeed, we can say more total (not totalising) or comprehensive worldviews are better for pragmatic reasons—they deliver results under a wider set of circumstances, being useful under variable contexts. Worldviews that explain and predict a broader range of phenomena accurately (questions 1, 2, 3) are more useful (think only of technology). As such, worldviews that embrace modern science will naturally perform this function better. In terms of morality (question 4), a more useful worldview provides answers and ways of thinking about new moral quandaries, in bioethics or A.I. for example. A static morality based on conceptions of the past will have a difficult time grappling with such new problems. Also practically (question 5), worldviews can be useful by providing ways of living that are better adapted to a continuously evolving society, like an emphasis on learning and knowledge. Naturally, worldviews that direct us to trustworthy sources of knowledge and, perhaps especially, reliable methods for gaining knowledge are also more useful (question 6). Finally, more total worldviews will succeed in providing durable beliefs that give meaning to life (question 7), even in the onslaught of modernity and its concomitant meaning crisis. Pragmatically speaking, then, some worldviews can be viewed as better than others, though this is by no means an objective measure nor one that should necessarily carry much weight.
Probably the greatest vice of a theory is inconsistency. Because worldviews are theories of the world, those without foundational contradictions ought to be rated higher than ones where core beliefs and practices are inconsistent with one another. Like theories, though, worldviews can withstand a terrible beating when it comes to contradictions. There will be much intellectual argument but often little practical consequence when there is a strong emotional appeal. Early Christianity wrestled with contradiction when it claimed the divinity of Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, all while also claiming to be a monotheism. In spite of this it was the fastest growing religion of its time, only resolving the contradiction some 300 years after with the dogma of the trinity (though not to everyone’s satisfaction). There are plenty of contradictions in the political realm, too. Like when nations and states claim to value and protect human rights and democracy but geopolitical reason and self-interest are the actual drivers of their actions. Especially worldviews of hegemonic powers—because they have the power to act with relative impunity—can be caught in this contradiction. In philosophy and science especially, this tension between contradicting beliefs is the engine of progress. So it is for worldviews—adapt or die, because contradictions will be inevitable. Openness to new insights and a flexibility of beliefs is then to be preferred, for circumstances always change and worldviews should keep up.
We can also judge a worldview through the lens of epistemic virtues, which are the qualities that make for good (scientific) theories. Among these are the process virtues, which relate to the process for coming to a worldview. A process that involves a diversity of cognisers and experience will produce a more inclusive and accurate worldview. The process should also be open to transformative criticism—new ideas should replace old ones if found to be better. Theoretical virtues are those virtues relating to the theory or worldview itself. Among these we can count parsimony and simplicity, explanatory and predictive power, empirical adequacy, and comprehensiveness. Of course, the epistemic virtues themselves are a part of a worldview. Transformative criticism of the word of God is probably not okay. Parsimony—the guiding principle that says we should adopt the simplest assumptions in explaining the data—is, in the end, also a metaphysical claim about how the universe is. In contrast, true polytheism asserts many nonphysical causes to explain the world’s phenomena and there is no logically binding reason for why this is false. Still, an overall better score on generally held epistemic virtues should make for a better worldview.
Another criterion for assessing worldviews is how they make us feel. This is not unproblematic though, as suffering can be meaningful and part of the good life when perceived to be for a greater good. Mere pleasure, a bodily sensation, is also something different from a deep satisfaction with life. Tilting the balance of pleasure and pain to one end won’t necessarily make for a happy existence. Instead, with Aristotle, worldviews should aim for eudaimonia, a condition of 'good spirit' which is often translated as being a state of wellbeing or flourishing. What Aristotle and other ancients precisely believed it to be and how to achieve it is much discussed, though. In my own interpretation, eudaimonia requires the harmonious interweaving of sensations, beliefs, and actions, all embedded in a lifeplan and thereby infused with meaning. As such, it is the difference between the pleasure derived from addictive substances and behaviours and the satisfaction of achieving a personal goal that was freely chosen and in line with your convictions. It will be clear that, again, the worldview plays an important part in this, furnishing many of the elements that transform pleasure into satisfaction. Human flourishing seems then to be again largely relative to a worldview, like the epistemic virtues. Still, that doesn’t make it a moot point—we know a thriving person when we see one. Good judgement is required in applying the criterion.
There is still another perspective we can take in evaluating worldviews—the evolutionary perspective. This draws on an analogy between fitness of biological organisms and fitness of worldviews and ideas more generally, often termed memes in this context. We could say better worldviews are those that are more successful in reproducing themselves in the minds of human beings. Religions have historically been good examples of such worldviews. Another, less direct way worldviews can spread is by providing the means by which some groups outcompete others. Worldviews that establish the military, sociopolitical, economic, demographic, or technological dominance of their group will expand their influence. In this regard, the worldview at the basis of modernity and the industrial revolution has been extremely successful. This evolutionary perspective is wholly amoral, though. Imposing racial hierarchies, slavery, and class violence is perfectly justifiable from this perspective, as long as it spreads the worldview.
In conclusion, despite lacking truly objective standards for evaluating worldviews, we still have several avenues for ranking them. We can look at how useful a worldview is in the ever changing circumstances of the modern world. How well it measures up to the epistemic virtues is another way to evaluate, and the absence of insurmountable contradictions—an epistemic vice—is also a good sign. Worldviews that are successful at making a wide range of human beings flourish in a wide range of circumstances also deserve to be called better. Finally, we can also take an evolutionary perspective, though we should be mindful of its amoral stance. In general, we should not rely on a single criterion to the exclusion of others. And, of course, most individuals do not judge their worldview on the basis of benefits and costs in this way. Worldviews as deeply felt personal convictions deserve dignity and respect, regardless of any purported ranking (when no longer personal but imposed on others, it is a different matter). Those looking to forge their own, however, must judge some better than others, and these criteria may offer a starting point.
P.S.: We are proud to announce that Worldview Encounters has been selected as a top 100 feedspot philosophy blog, which is the most comprehensive list of philosophy blogs on the internet. Take a look on their website to see what they can offer you.
See also our article on Why and How to Construct a Worldview
More info on the about page and worldview concept article. This list is adapted in part from Vidal, C. (2008) “Wat is een wereldbeeld?”