This may make more sense in a concrete example. I’ll use myself.
Having gotten a law degree – and seen what societies look like that settle their disputes with Ak-47s, rather than courts – I have a profound respect for the Rule of Law (there’s probably a post about that coming down the pike). Without it, there is no security for the average citizen. So, as a very broad moral principle, I’m an earnest advocate of the Rule of Law… HOWEVER, I cannot say in all honesty that if one of my children was harmed – and the bad guy walked – that I would be above a little (okay, a lot of) vigilantism – at some level, I remain an “eye for an eye” kinda guy. I recognize the “hypocrisy” of my position – and I also recognize the extremis of the example. One – It’s highly unlikely that I will ever need to worry about this scenario, and Two – there exists the possibility that I might actually stick to my principles if it ever came to that. Here’s hoping I never have to find out for certain.
The point here is that my advocacy of an “integrated philosophy” is not one of inflexible rigidity – i.e. dogma – to any particular ethic. Whether it be Rand’s “Objectivism” or Kant’s “moral imperative” or even the Christian “Golden Rule” (although it’s pretty hard to find a flaw in that premise – although I can even think of a “masochism” exception there… think about it, it’s kinda funny).
I suppose that my point of an “integrated philosophy” can be simplified to a process of thinking. The point is to examine one’s own “can’t helps”* and ask the simple question “why?” until you drill down to the most fundamental principle. Then, you have to build back outward from there and try to decide if you can live with that rule more generally – or if it conflicts with a bunch of other “can’t helps” you have. At that point, you start to ask yourself the important questions: “Which of these principles that conflicts is the more important? Which trumps the other? Does it depend upon a very narrow set of circumstances? Do I have any exceptions?”
You can do this while sitting on the toilet, waiting for the plane to taxi, or on those long, pointless drives we all make. And you can do this for big topics and little ones – from politics to personal phobias. Do you believe absolutely in a woman’s “right to choose?” If so, why? Is it because the Supreme Court said so? Or is it because you’re libertarian and think government regulation of anything probably sucks? Or is it because you believe in some form of feminism that grants to women an absolute right over the fetus growing within them? What about at the 8 month mark – would you say that a woman had an incontrovertible right to terminate that pregnancy simply because she felt like it? Does your sense of familial duty trump all other obligations – would you lie to protect your drug-dealing brother? Or would you turn him in?
I could go on and on… and I suppose that in my spare moments, I do. I’m certain this makes me a bit of a geek (okay, more than a bit) but as I continue to find my way through this life, I’ve found that this process has helped me immensely to better understand who I am, what I believe, and where I might need to “harmonize” some of my beliefs to better accord with the principles that I want to espouse. I have one more thought on this, in order to tie it in concretely to daily existence and improvement… Enough for now.
*I first came across this term in law school. It’s from the great Oliver Wendell Holmes. I can’t find on Google whether it was in an opinion (my recollection is that he used it in a dissent regarding the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process, but the best I can find is from his private writings. “Next when I say a thing is true I only mean that I can’t help believing it—but I have no grounds for assuming that my can’t helps are cosmic can’t helps and some reasons for thinking otherwise. I therefore define the truth as the system of my intellectual limitations.”)