On a palette between philosophies vying for influence, where do our beliefs lie? We may be idealists in one dimension of our lives, and in others, deeply practical. Shaped by our backgrounds, we tend to view rival life-philosophies the way an art spectator beholds a masterpiece — circling it, taking in each angle, without needing to declare one the correct reading.
This very freedom to move between perspectives is what ensures variability in the actions we can expect from a person in a given situation. It's a relief that we aren't binned for life. Options remain, and so do possibilities — entertained, adopted, set aside — under an overarching philosophy that behaves more like a toolkit than a cage. In imagination, we hold limitless worlds, unlimited possibilities. But reality works differently, and often more narrowly.
So when we're asked what value underlies a given course of action, we may posit a stance that is more or less actionable, depending on the ground beneath us. On television and social media, pundits routinely accuse each other of double standards, each insisting that one universal ethical principle must always precede its alternative. Pragmatism resists that demand — it prefers based on situation, on circumstance.
We remain guilt-free adopting multifarious views from time to time. Our behavior stays extensible, and so our potential is realized.