Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PepsiMoondog t1_j3x6hdg wrote

Reply to comment by NeoliberalSocialist in Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin

I wouldn't necessarily argue if you called me that. But that's just one example of competing ideologies. Am I a utilitarian or a deontologist? Both sides have good arguments. Am I an existentialist or a determinist? Again, both sides have good arguments. Obviously I could keep going but I think you get my point. There is nothing that says you have to pick a side, other than adherents of that side :)

5

Polychrist t1_j3xflk9 wrote

There’s a sense in which that’s true in the abstract, but when it comes down to actual decision making, the fact of whether you’re a deontologist or a utilitarian (to pick one topic) could mean a great deal.

Example: a deontologist will likely say that you should never cheat on your partner, even if you’re sure you could get away with it.

A utilitarian will say that you should maximize happiness, and if having an affair brings you and your affair partner happiness, and is hidden well enough from your spouse, then the affair may be not only justifiable but morally required.

So would you cheat or no? There’s practical applications to these ideas that will affect how you live your life.

4

PepsiMoondog t1_j3xn111 wrote

Indeed, but why must you commit to one? If I'm on a road trip with 5 kids and ask them where they want to eat and 4 say McDonald's and one says taco bell, the utilitarian argument says go to McDonald's (ignoring for a moment ethical concerns about their business practices and eating meat in general). Most would agree that utilitarianism provides a good framework for ethically deciding this.

But say it's the taco bell kid's birthday and you promised him you'd eat wherever he wants. Suddenly the utilitarian framework falls apart and the deontological argument looks better.

So why commit to one at all? Different situations test the limits of every philosophy. Isn't it better to make each decision on its own merits instead of rigidly adhering to a framework that may or may not work well in that situation? It's great to learn about different schools of philosophy, their strongest arguments and criticisms of it. The mistake is the idea that we have to become adherents of it.

Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function"

6

Polychrist t1_j3xr7vr wrote

Great response! But I think that there’s probably an underlying principle that would cover both scenarios, which makes them not opposing ideas at all. I find it more interesting to examine what that principle might be, because you’ll most likely find that the two “opposed” ideas are not actually opposed at all.

2

PepsiMoondog t1_j3xvwc0 wrote

I'm still getting over some post-COVID brain fog so I'm sure my examples aren't amazing, but you can probably come up with something where two ideologies, or even just principles that you generally agree with are in conflict with each other. And just because you resolve it one way or another doesn't mean you have to commit to or abandon either idea.

2