Inconsistent Internal Logic
Inconsistent Internal Logic
Thesis My personal moral philosophy is a garbled mess.
Premise 1 I am, as any college student who has taken one or two philosophy classes is, a dyed-in-the-wool utilitarian.
Premise 2 When my wife is annoyed by something I did, or forgot to do, I invariably argue that my motives were pure and, thus, should be free of blame.
Conclusion Premise 1 posits that I adhere to a utilitarian ethical framework. Premise 2 posits that I argue against being blamed for my actions from a deontological perspective. Thus, I am a wishy-washy yahoo who uses whichever moral philosophy is convenient at the moment; QED.
I enjoy putting arguments/realizations like these on the mantle as trophies for every time I’ve been wrong.
Sometimes I’m asked about this embarrassment of riches. How come I have so many?
They don’t know I have more upstairs. What they see down here are just my favs, the real whoppers.
Anyway my go-to response of course is “why how many do most people have” then offer to freshen their drink.
Anyway my go-to response of course is “why how many do most people have” then offer to freshen their drink.
IMO it is worth being proud of the times you realized you were wrong. Most people live unexamined or underexamined lives. Having fewer moments when you realized you were wrong is not even remotely close to having been wrong fewer times. If anything it indicates the opposite: those with fewer wrongness-realizations will continue to be wrong in myriad subtle and humorously obvious ways.
I love this response because it might make the other person realize they have no clue how often they're wrong.
If the deontological argument convinces your wife, then using that argument has a positive utility and is an acceptable moral action under a utilitarian framework.
But seriously, if you took multiple courses of ethical philosophy and came out convinced that utilitarianism is the only answer, your educators failed you. Not because utilitarianism is not an acceptable answer —it's flawed, but still useful— but because there are other ethical frameworks that are just as good or better.
Not deontology, though. That's wishy-washy nonsense.
Lol I know utilitarianism is not the answer, but that's the most concise way to say that the vast majority of my thought processes are outcome-oriented
Also, it was kinda necessary to use utilitarianism to get the direct opposites in there for comedic effect. Makes it punchy
Makes it punchy
ironically, this is a utilitarian analysis
... and does that bother you?
I hope the very much not serious tone came across in my post, so I wouldn't say it bothers me.
I do find interesting, though, because the outcomes of actions are definitely what I focus on more, as a general rule