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.
... 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