Three everyday questions that turn philosophical
Philosophy, in this course, is not mainly about collecting more facts. It is a practice: clarifying questions, concepts, and reasons. You start with something ordinary, then you slow down and ask two clarifying moves: “What do we mean?” and “What follows?”
1) Fairness in chores
Everyday question: “Is it fair that I do more chores than my roommate?”
This becomes philosophical when you stop arguing about the details (who took out the trash last Tuesday) and ask about the idea you are using.
- What do we mean by ‘fair’? Equal time? Equal effort? Equal unpleasantness? Proportional to free time? Proportional to income? Proportional to who benefits?
- What follows from each meaning? If fairness means “equal time,” then a 30-minute task counts the same no matter how tiring it is. If fairness means “equal burden,” then a physically demanding task might count more than a quick one.
Notice what changed: you moved from a dispute about events to a question about a concept (fairness) and its implications (what rules would follow).
2) Choosing a career
Everyday question: “Should I choose a stable job or a meaningful job?”
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
This becomes philosophical when you clarify the values and the trade-offs you are assuming.
- What do we mean by ‘meaningful’? Helping others? Using your talents? Feeling proud? Being creative? Aligning with your beliefs?
- What do we mean by ‘stable’? Predictable income? Low risk of layoffs? Clear career ladder? Benefits? Work-life boundaries?
- What follows if we rank values differently? If “meaning” is the top value, you might accept financial risk. If “security” is the top value, you might accept boredom. If you treat both as important, you may look for a third option (a stable job that funds meaningful projects, or a meaningful job with a safety plan).
Again, the philosophical move is not “learn more facts about the job market” (though that can help). It is: clarify the concepts and the reasons for prioritizing one value over another.
3) Telling the truth
Everyday question: “Should I tell my friend the truth if it will hurt them?”
This becomes philosophical when you examine what you mean by “truth,” “hurt,” and “should,” and what principles you are willing to accept.
- What do we mean by ‘tell the truth’? Say everything you believe? Avoid lying? Avoid misleading? Speak only if asked?
- What do we mean by ‘hurt’? Temporary discomfort? Long-term harm? Damage to trust? Loss of confidence?
- What follows from different principles? If you think honesty is always required, then you tell the truth even when it stings. If you think preventing harm is more important, you might soften, delay, or withhold. If you think respect matters, you might aim for truthful communication that is also considerate.
Philosophical thinking here is not just “what happened” but “what counts as the right kind of action, and why.”
Description vs evaluation: what is vs what should be
A key skill in philosophical thinking is separating description from evaluation. Many arguments become confusing because these get mixed together.
| Type of statement | What it does | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Description (what is) | Reports facts, observations, or how things work | “We split chores 50/50 last month.” “This job pays more.” “If I say this, my friend will feel embarrassed.” |
| Evaluation (what should be) | Judges, recommends, praises/blames, sets a standard | “The split is unfair.” “I should choose the meaningful job.” “I ought to be honest.” |
Both matter, but they play different roles:
- Descriptions help you understand the situation accurately.
- Evaluations express a standard you are applying (fairness, responsibility, kindness, autonomy, etc.).
Philosophical thinking often begins when you notice a jump like this:
We split chores 50/50. Therefore, it is fair.That “therefore” hides an assumption: that fairness means equal division. Philosophy asks you to bring hidden assumptions into the open and test them.
Reasons: claims need support, and support can be examined
In everyday life we make claims constantly: “That’s unfair,” “You should do it,” “It’s wrong,” “It’s the best option.” Philosophical thinking treats these as claims that need reasons.
Claim, reason, and hidden assumption
Try this simple structure:
- Claim: What you are saying is true or should be done.
- Reason: Why someone should accept the claim.
- Assumption: An unstated idea that must be true for the reason to support the claim.
Example (chores):
Claim: It's unfair that I do more chores than my roommate. Reason: I spend more time cleaning than they do. Assumption: Fairness requires equal time spent on chores.Once the assumption is visible, you can examine it. Maybe fairness is not equal time but equal burden, or proportional to free time, or based on agreement.
What makes a reason “good”?
For beginners, you can test reasons with three practical checks:
- Relevance: Does the reason actually connect to the claim? (If the claim is about fairness, does the reason address fairness rather than annoyance?)
- Support: If the reason is true, does it make the claim more likely? Or could the claim still easily be false?
- Consistency: Would you accept the same reasoning in similar cases? If not, what difference matters?
Example (truth-telling):
Claim: I should tell my friend the truth. Reason: Friends deserve honesty. Check: Would I say the same if the truth would cause serious harm? If not, what principle limits honesty?Philosophy does not demand that you have perfect answers immediately. It demands that you can say what you mean, show your reasons, and let those reasons be questioned.
Guided exercise: turn a complaint into a philosophical question
This short exercise trains the core practice: moving from frustration to clarity.
Step 1: Write an everyday complaint
Pick something you have said (or thought) recently. Keep it short.
- “My roommate is so inconsiderate.”
- “It’s ridiculous that I have to do this.”
- “People should stop being fake.”
Step 2: Underline the evaluative words
Evaluative words include: unfair, wrong, should, inconsiderate, selfish, better, meaningful, disrespectful, fake, irresponsible.
Example:
My roommate is so *inconsiderate*.Step 3: Ask “What do we mean?” (define the key concept)
Turn the evaluative word into a concept you can explain.
- What counts as “inconsiderate” behavior?
- Is it about intentions, outcomes, or both?
- Does it require a pattern, or can one action be enough?
Step 4: Ask “What follows?” (make the implications explicit)
Write what would follow if your definition were accepted.
- If “inconsiderate” means “ignoring agreed rules,” then the key issue is whether there was a clear agreement.
- If it means “causing avoidable harm,” then the key issue is whether the harm was avoidable and foreseeable.
Step 5: Rewrite as a clear philosophical question
Use one of these templates:
- Concept question: “What is X?”
- Standard question: “What makes X justified?”
- Principle question: “When, if ever, should we do X?”
Example rewrite:
Complaint: My roommate is inconsiderate. Philosophical question: What counts as being inconsiderate in shared living, and is it mainly about intentions, outcomes, or respecting agreements?Step 6: Identify what would count as a good answer
A good answer is not just a strong feeling. It should include:
- A clear definition of the key term (e.g., “inconsiderate”).
- A reasoned standard (why that definition is the right one to use).
- Implications (what the standard would require in real cases).
- A test case (an example that checks whether the answer gives sensible results).
Fill in this mini-outline:
My philosophical question: __________________________ Key term I must define: __________________________ My proposed definition: __________________________ My main reason for it: __________________________ What follows if it's accepted: __________________________ A case that would test it: __________________________
