There was a very thought-provoking leader in today’s Nya Åland. Nina Fellman brings up the case of the deputy chairman of the Swedish People’s Party in Finland; it appears that thirty years ago he was the editor of a a virulenty communist newspaper.
What the leader got me to thinking about was consistency. It’s often thought to be damaging to a person’s credibility if they’re not consistent. Strictly adhering to a given principle is therefore attractive, because it gives the adherent the reassurance of consistency. The search for one guiding principle on which we can build to solve the many problems that life provides us with is nothing new. I studied philosophy at university in England, and the choice was, in part, motivated by just such a desire. I still remember being told by one of my lecturers, correctly as it turned out, that studying philosophy wouldn’t be of much help in that direction.
Anyway, assuming the principle you adhere to is sound and you apply it consistently, how can you go wrong? The first problem is deciding whether a principle is sound. How do we know a principle is sound? How else but in how we feel about it, how we feel about the conclusions applying it leads us to and, most importantly, in how we feel about the results of that principle being applied in practise. The danger with overzealous dedication to one principle is that it becomes more than a guide. If our desire to be consistent leads us to override our feelings about what is right and wrong, or to conclude that we must learn to adjust the way we feel about something in order that we can be consistent, then I’d tentatively suggest that it is sometimes better not to be consistent.