= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Unknowns comments on Deontology for Consequentialists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (247)
All unbreakable rules in a deontological moral system are negative; you would never have one saying "protect the innocent." But you can have "don't lie" and "don't murder" and so on.
And no, if you answer the question truthfully, failing to protect the innocent, they don't count that as murdering (unless there was some other choice that you could have made without either lying or failing to protect the person.)
This isn't necessarily the case. You can have positive requirements in a deontic system.
Yes, but not "unbreakable" ones. In other words there will be exceptions on account of some other positive or negative requirement, as in the objections above.