Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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