Philosophical context
Indeed, the question put forth excites any citizen into critical thought. This comes in the wake of President Obama’s assumption of office for his second and final term. The question as to whether one should support his economic agenda borders on whether one has got preferences as to any economic policies. Philosophy requires of us to exercise critical thought and look at the wider spectrum despite our own internal preferences. The question could thus be put forth more precisely by noting that despite the differences in ideology, and for the sake of the common good of the citizen, are Obama’s economic policies efficient?
These class questions do not necessarily require justification. In fact, that is what exempts them from classification as scientific questions. They fall outside the province of the class of questions that calls for rational choices. In this situation, one just needs merely to reconcile his doctrines and principles with the matters at hand. In that manner, one would be able to either incline towards or against the policies. The main issue does not concern the facts rather it resonates around one’s personal convictions and principles.
Looking at the question as to whether to support Obama’s economic policies, one ought to consider his fundamental economic beliefs and the leanings. For example, Obama naturally has, ingrained in him, deep socialist undertones. One should query the school of thought or the class he naturally belongs to before addressing the question. Logically, a person who subscribes to pure capitalist school of thought and by extension, class, would not at any time support a socialist oriented policy. This would be contrary to his interests and desires. This is why this question borders on the philosophy rather than the science. It requires for comprehensive critical thinking.
Approach in exploring the question
In exploring the question, it would be essential for one to consider guiding principles of critical thought. For instance, one must exercise the often difficult but noble principle of objectivity. This calls for one to be objective and devoid of any bias whatsoever. The requirement, however, is not blind to the fact that one has inherent biases in him. It simply calls for the person to divorce the biases temporarily and consider the eventual end rather than the means.
Alongside the concept of objectivity, one should also necessarily look into aspects of critical thought. Philosophy is all about critical thought. To coin the narrative further, linguists refer to it as the third dimension. In this, there is the need to examine issues with a third spectrum. This is complimentary, but not similar to the need for objectivity. In this concept, one would look at the effect of say supporting the economic policies in relation to the long term goals and needs. The question should, therefore, not be explored merely on the pretext of facts and likely results. Rather, it should be explored through the guiding principles that influenced the policy formulator. A third perspective essentially requires that one considers what informed a policy rather than the policy itself. A good example lies in the practice in law. A court, in interpreting statutory or constitutional provisions, is usually guided not by the literal meaning of the provisions, but largely by the spirit that informed the piece of legislation or law. This is what in law they call the mischief rule. This principle is philosophical in nature for it goes outside the scope and superficial approach many would like to pursue. Instead, it calls for one to take the trouble and examine the third side of the coin. However, one needs to appreciate the fact that this process is naturally difficult.
Critical thought does not reside only in third dimensional approach. Another essential epoch that needs to be adopted in exploration of the question is the body of past experiences and histories. Linguists say that experience is the best teacher. This perhaps is informed by the fact that what we go through in life usually serves to make us strong and wise. One wonders why then does it occur that some adults are unwise even at advanced ages. However, experiences and history serve to show us the direction. This comes in handy in instances of deep uncertainty. For example, with the fears that capitalism may collapse, given the continued scandals and debt bails in Europe, the uncertainty may lead one to resort to historical accounts in addressing the question put forth. One would want not to stick to mere theoretical explanations for the policies, but would want to hear of previous incidences in which the solution posed did work, or in other cases, where the solution not pursued was pursued and failed. The use of historical accounts is usually predicated on the fact that they serve as the best estimators of the future. They show how possibly things could play out and so remain essential in decision making.
In conclusion, one must appreciate the amorphous nature of philosophical questions. They do not necessarily have a straight forward answer and rely heavily on the doctrines and biases of an individual.
References
Cavell, S. (2005). Philosophy:The Day After Tomorrow. New York: Harvard University Press.
Velasquez, M. (2011). Philosophy:A Text With Readings. New York: Cengage Learning.
