4 Comments
User's avatar
SkinShallow's avatar

I'd agree that in most cases it's a game, I'm not sure if it's frivolous. A lot of intellectual activity is somewhat game -like. How would it be harmful? I think deciding one is, for example, a utilitarian (or at least a consequentialist of some sort) can lead, for some people (people who engage in those intellectual exercises for a reason -- eg to inform their actions or life plans) to meaningful decisions about, in very broad terms, "how to live their lives". And from that come specific rules or heuristics or acts. For others it will be mostly a rationalisation exercise ("what best fits what I already do" type) or pure "fun" (without any consequences for how they act). Either way, where are the possible harms?

[Standard caveat: not at all a philosopher here]

Expand full comment
Charles Blattberg's avatar

I think the game part is associated not with discovering or developing the rules of a given moral theory, so much as applying (i.e. playing) them.

Expand full comment
Charles Blattberg's avatar

Cf. my "Taking Politics Seriously" or "Politics, Anyone?" here: https://philpapers.org/rec/BLATPS-4 and https://philpapers.org/rec/BLAPA-12.

Expand full comment
Alex S.'s avatar

This is very important. I'm very interested into how people often behave in ways that are, in the history of philosophy, claimed to be moral, and how this could be understood outside of textual, formal, prescriptive frameworks.

Expand full comment