In the midst of a difficult decision, the one who needs to make the decision may remain undecided. One way of dealing with such indecision is seeking advice. Where? Consider examples of difficult life decisions: the decision whether to end life support to a family member in a vegetative state. Or the decision of what to do with a marital crisis. There are expert inputs into these decisions: medical professionals can tell you about the condition of the person in a coma and about the likely developments, and law experts can tell you whether a disastrous divorce settlement is likely. Do these inputs work as advice on what to do? It would be more adequate to say that making a good decision is markedly more difficult and less likely if one ignores this input. However, these cases can be construed as cases in which, while respecting the expertise, one can still decide in several different ways, and neither would obviously be right. If those who have relevant empirical expertise, without which a full understanding of the case is impossible, do not make the decision for us, on whose advice do we rely? Consider such advisors as our best friends, family patriarchs/matriarchs who have lived long enough to see and experience a lot, a spiritual authority (a particular priest, rabbi, etc., one trusts, as opposed to just any priest, etc., qua a priest, etc.). We seek them for their wisdom or insight, not for a statement ‘you should do X’, though they may quite likely say ‘you should definitely not ignore what the doctor is saying about …’ This wisdom that might shape the decision will probably be less of the kind of a normative recommendation (unless you are looking for an authority to bow to, to relieve you of the burden of decision), and more of words that will shed a new light in which you will come to see the situation differently, more clearly. I would tentatively argue that if there is room for philosophical advice capable of a comparable effect, it will have to integrate or mediate between several heterogeneous kinds of contributions: (1) traditionally construed expertise in relevant empirical fields, (2) traditionally construed philosophical expertise in critiquing (un)sound arguments and (un)clear concepts, and (3) the capacity to talk to the other about the issue in question in a way that will help shed light on it while not assuming the authority of decision. The question of whether adopting such a position would make philosophical reflection, as an advisor, holistic or rather toothless remains open and will be tentatively addressed in the paper, too. The remaining unclarity has to do with the intrinsic heterogeneity of ‘advice’: a medical advisor offers advice to the extent that she provides the relevant empirical expertise (that she has) to back the decision-making agent’s decision, while a ‘good friend’ offers advice in that she may have no expertise but provides differently positioned non-judgmental ‘eye’. In both cases—and there are others—what makes the ‘advice’ different from authority-backed legitimate instruction or command is of a different kind.

The Difficulties of Philosophical Advice

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Ondřej Beran

摘要

In the midst of a difficult decision, the one who needs to make the decision may remain undecided. One way of dealing with such indecision is seeking advice. Where? Consider examples of difficult life decisions: the decision whether to end life support to a family member in a vegetative state. Or the decision of what to do with a marital crisis. There are expert inputs into these decisions: medical professionals can tell you about the condition of the person in a coma and about the likely developments, and law experts can tell you whether a disastrous divorce settlement is likely. Do these inputs work as advice on what to do? It would be more adequate to say that making a good decision is markedly more difficult and less likely if one ignores this input. However, these cases can be construed as cases in which, while respecting the expertise, one can still decide in several different ways, and neither would obviously be right. If those who have relevant empirical expertise, without which a full understanding of the case is impossible, do not make the decision for us, on whose advice do we rely? Consider such advisors as our best friends, family patriarchs/matriarchs who have lived long enough to see and experience a lot, a spiritual authority (a particular priest, rabbi, etc., one trusts, as opposed to just any priest, etc., qua a priest, etc.). We seek them for their wisdom or insight, not for a statement ‘you should do X’, though they may quite likely say ‘you should definitely not ignore what the doctor is saying about …’ This wisdom that might shape the decision will probably be less of the kind of a normative recommendation (unless you are looking for an authority to bow to, to relieve you of the burden of decision), and more of words that will shed a new light in which you will come to see the situation differently, more clearly. I would tentatively argue that if there is room for philosophical advice capable of a comparable effect, it will have to integrate or mediate between several heterogeneous kinds of contributions: (1) traditionally construed expertise in relevant empirical fields, (2) traditionally construed philosophical expertise in critiquing (un)sound arguments and (un)clear concepts, and (3) the capacity to talk to the other about the issue in question in a way that will help shed light on it while not assuming the authority of decision. The question of whether adopting such a position would make philosophical reflection, as an advisor, holistic or rather toothless remains open and will be tentatively addressed in the paper, too. The remaining unclarity has to do with the intrinsic heterogeneity of ‘advice’: a medical advisor offers advice to the extent that she provides the relevant empirical expertise (that she has) to back the decision-making agent’s decision, while a ‘good friend’ offers advice in that she may have no expertise but provides differently positioned non-judgmental ‘eye’. In both cases—and there are others—what makes the ‘advice’ different from authority-backed legitimate instruction or command is of a different kind.