You raise a good point on how people like us enjoy leveraging ambiguous philosophy for our own amorality. If the philosopher fails to take a stand — something i

You raise a good point on how people like us enjoy leveraging ambiguous philosophy for our own amorality. If the philosopher fails to take a stand — something is good, something is bad, something is wrong, something is right — their ideas are easily repurposed for rationalizing, even absolving, immoral acts. People like me want nice-sounding, undemanding ideas that makes them look good and feel good. We desire ideas that shift with words, ideas that lack solid form and the logical consistency that would ward off our own desires. Like you said, it's dangerous because people think ambiguous philosophy as a vitamin, when really it's an intellectual candy. Tasty and sweet, but no nutrition for the soul, and certainly it gives no energy for its exercise.