= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AndyWood 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)
Does the question of "why" simply not enter into a deontologists thinking? My mind seems to leap to complete the statement "you should do what's right" with something along the lines of "because society will be more harmonious".
Also, I wish that psychopaths would do what's right, but what seems to be missing is any force of persuasion. And that seems important.
We can have "whys", but they look a little different. Mine look like "because people have rights", mostly. Or "because I am a moral agent", looking from the other direction.
I think one reason that so many people here are consequentialists is that these kinds of ideas do not hit bottom. I think LW attracts people who like to chase explanations down as far as possible to foundations. Do you yourself apply reductionism to morality?
"Reductionism" is one of those words that can mean about seventeen things. I think rights/moral agency both drop out of personhood, which is a function of cognitive capacities, which I take to be software instantiated on entirely physical bases - does that count as whatever you had in mind?
From Wikipedia:
The bold part is plenty close enough to what I have in mind. Your response definitely counts. Next question that immediately leaps to mind is: how do you determine which formulations of morality best respect the personhood and rights of others, and best fulfill your duty as a moral agent?
My theory isn't finished, so I can't present you with a list, or anything, but I've just summarized what I've got so far here.