So
relevance in a given case may depend on the concepts, principles, and
facts that we bring to the situation?
Sometimes, everything else is in place and we only need to
ascertain some fact, or how to achieve some goal. The way we set up the question about whether race
was relevant to college admission was like that. In other cases, all
the facts may be agreed upon but we need to decide a philosophical or
theological question like "What is a person?" or "Does
the embryo bear the image of God?" The personhood of the embryo
would be of enormous relevance within a certain moral framework.
Whether the embryo bears the image of God would be of enormous
importance within another framework.
In other cases, deciding what is relevance may be a moral decision.
When we decided in this country that race was irrelevant to questions
of employment, perhaps that was a moral judgment.
Deciding what is relevant requires answers to different kinds of
questions in different cases. I can think of several possibilities:
- Sometimes the relevance of a factor may turn on a
scientific fact or on establishing a causal connection
between various factors. For example, when we have a clear
purpose in mind, science may be able to tell us what
factors are relevant to achieving that purpose.
- Sometimes relevance may be determined by a moral
judgment.
- Sometimes relevance may be due to a logical connection
between two concepts.
|
Hey, the water is getting deeper here. Can't anything be simple
anymore?
|