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’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