I used to think that philosophy was bunk until I studied it for a degree in Humanities. Having understood the arguments from a range of different sources, I felt it was ok to pass comment. Without that knowledge you don’t really have a ticket for the game.
That game may cause debates to become heated. I remember a tutorial when we were asked to think about whether people who lived lifestyles that contributed to their ill health were entitled to the same level of health care as those who did not take the same risks.
We were asked to consider heavy smokers and some were persuaded that they should not be given equal treatment if resources were limited. But when a student suggested that someone with an unhealthy addiction to cream buns should accept the same limits to their treatment, his view was loudly condemned by a student with a weight problem.
Today we might ask if those who refuse to get vaccinated and become ill with Covid deserve equal treatment? In practice doctors already have to decide to prioritise treatment on the basis of the best chance of recovery. Ethical choices are guided by philosophical arguments.
Our understanding of the human mind is an area ripe for philosophical debate. Is there something special about thinking that cannot be attributed to natural phenomena? Is consciousness explained by materialism?
Once we start to consider unresolved debates it stretches our thinking and gives us the skills to present reasoned arguments.
odespinner 