Can 2Q Be Used to Address Any Belief?

Statement

The capital of California is Los Angeles.

Q1 Analysis

This is not a Q1 violation so long as you feel certain that this is a true statement.

Q2 Analysis

This is not a Q2 violation unless you would object to someone else stating as a fact something they misremember.

Discussion

It is appropriate to use 2Q as a method for analyzing moral and ethical problems, deciding what to do when a judgement call is required, or examining decision-making systems. But it can also be useful when examining basic statements of fact.

For example, 2Q can be used to devise rules for when it is (and is not) appropriate to state something as a fact. How certain must you be that the statement is true? Would you blame someone else who made a statement with the same amount of certainty that you have but turned out to be wrong?

2Q is less useful in matters of pure aesthetic opinion (e.g., "I like cake") So long as you are sincere and not using ambiguous terms, 2Q isn’t much help here. In fact, it is possible for aesthetic choices to violate Q1 without being incorrect. For example, if you prefer vanilla to strawberry, and prefer strawberry to chocolate, then by Q1 you might conclude that you should prefer vanilla to chocolate. But if you choose chocolate over vanilla, you aren’t being intellectually inconsistent, just human.

Which (if any) of these statements would it be useful to examine with 2Q?

You are encouraged to leave your answers to the questions posed in this post in the comments section. This post is based on an excerpt from Ask Yourself to be Moral, by D. Cancilla, available at LuLu.com and Amazon.com. See the 2Q system page for details of the philosophical system mentioned in this post.

Posted on February 22, 2011 at 10:01 pm by ideclare · Permalink
In: 2Q

Leave a Reply