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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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