Being Logically Consistant

I typically side with the NAP (non-aggression principle), but then I often catch myself flipping towards utilitarianism.

Can one adhere to both ideologies? When do I pick one over the other?

Being logically consistent in such a way is foolish. You aren't even being logical, you're trying to mash up very simplistic pictures of the world. Only such simple propositional worlds could generate idiocies like the NAP or a first-order "utilitarianism".

Worry more about consistency in routine logics and you'll find how much more inconsistent everyone else is. Then you realize that it's stupid to depend on the simplistic world pictures and you spin more stable pictures using your experience and good data.

Whether or not either ideology allows you to, why would you restrict yourself to just one moral framework? Wouldn't the ideal thing be to take what you like from both sides and combine them into your own ideology? Unless a particular value from one side directly contradicts one from the other, you aren't being inconsistent. I understand why some would wish to be part and parcel to a specific ideology, though. The sense of belonging to something larger than oneself and all of that.

So you're arguing for pragmatism then? If so, how does one weigh the preferable outcome without an ideological measure?

So, I could side with NAP, unless if "extreme" circumstances - utilitarianism wins the day. You know, like, kill a baby to discover the cure for cancer.

> I understand why some would wish to be part and parcel to a specific ideology, though. The sense of belonging to something larger than oneself and all of that.

Yes, we're fond of labels. Even not having an ideology, like relativism or nihilism, can be considered an ideology.

We have a vast array of instincts and preset intuitions. Not to mention that living in a world with other agents gives you material to form models of their psychology that cain be and is tested in interactions with them.

Humans aren't "logically consistent". They juggle multiple pictures of the world and try to bet on the one with the largest payoff in a particular situation.

If you want standardized humans, build a robot with a completely sequential brain.

By the very nature of ethical problems it's impossible to be logically consistent following them since any logical development need a set of axioms, and until you believe in some supernatural force there are no axioms to be found in nature that treat the problem of morality.

Now if you create arbitrary axioms that's another problem, but then you can do the fuck you want, for example, "I follow this axiom until this happen", etc

>morality
Ew.

The truth of it is that humans are a group-forming animal and said groups tend to abide rules that its members are comfortable with. Basically actions which harm the group or members thereof, or are seen as reasonably likely to harm the same, are viewed as undesirable of a member (bad). Actions which are seen to harm the group are punished in ways deemed appropriate. Actions which are seen to benefit the group are rewarded likewise.

Thus describes the whole of morality as it actually exists. Philosophers are just dumb cunts who like to ramble about nothing.

>b-but tigers taking care of baby deer?!11

So, most of the group thinks it's okay if I rape your mom. Thus you cannot rationally state that it is "wrong" for me to do so.