"Simple" doesn't mean "easy," or things would go a lot more smoothly.

There's an enormous resistance to the idea of "right" and "wrong" being objectively identifiable. For one thing, as long as these things are kept mostly arbitrary, nobody can really be wrong, can they?

I don't believe all philosophical systems of inquiry are equivalent and equally valid.

If this is true, you must have some means of deciding between them other than your whims of the moment. How do you judge, if not by applying facts and observation? Ideas on how to live need to pass the test of reality as much as ideas on how to build a boat.

Even if you don't want to go anywhere near the philosophical analysis, at the least you can deal with ideas on the basis of "by their fruits you shall know them."

Here's one example: The idea of collectivism has screwed up every country in which it has been consistently applied, regardless of race, creed, language, resources, culture, and history. This includes "controlled experiments" where a nation was divided in half and each side went opposite ways. I see this as about as close as you can get to a scientific study.

We don't need to know the ins and outs of the different philosophies to see the results, and this is true for religious ideas, social ideas, and ideas on human behavior. Of course, some results are harder to identify than others, but it doesn't negate the principle.

We can still make our calls on this kind of basis, even if we don't want to deal with the root causes of ideas. Just like figuring out if a doctor is any good. If you want, you can look up where he studied, what classes he took, and his ideas on medical treatment. But if he's killed every patient he's ever touched, you really don't need the rest of the information.

I don't know about you, but for almost everything I have to deal with in life, I do live in a Newtonian universe. So do you.