RichardChappell comments on Deontology for Consequentialists - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Alicorn 30 January 2010 05:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (247)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RichardChappell 31 January 2010 05:23:47AM *  4 points [-]

extensional definitions are terribly unsatisfactory

True enough, but it's worth noting that what we have here (between a deontological theory and its 'consequentialized' doppelganger) is necessary co-extension. Less chordates and renates, more triangularity and trilaterality. And it's philosophically controversial whether there can be distinct but necessarily co-extensive properties. (I think there can be; but I just thought this was worth flagging.)

Comment author: Jack 31 January 2010 05:36:33AM 1 point [-]

Good point. If we do another survey (and it is about time) I'd like to know how people here stand on the existence of abstract objects (universals, types, etc.)