For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches.
A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals.
There are some ideologies I won’t touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I’m friendly with.
I’ll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I’d be curious how you’d respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I’ve found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.
I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess
I think they both have a time and a place.
I like my philosophy flexible
Meta-utilitarianism? Apply the most useful philosophy to each problem separately?
For me, I have a mental knapsack full of philosophical approaches.
A situations scope, impact, and effect may demand a different philosophical framework to meet my or the groups goals.
There are some ideologies I won’t touch or entertain. There are some I can only accept under very specific terms and timelines. I have my favorites and more that I’m friendly with.
So ya, a sort of meta-utlitarianism!
I’ll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I’d be curious how you’d respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I’ve found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.
I feel that post hoc reasoning is not a flaw. It helps build a coherent moral framework. To the hammer, everything is a nail. Why limit the philosophical tools pre or post any need i guess