= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack 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)
Got it.
Fwiw, it seems to me that reduction is for natural objects not social constructions. You shouldn't try to apply reductionism to the rules of a sporting event, for example. (I'm not a deontologist but I don't think it is any less appealing than consequentialism.)
It may be a different flavor of reductionism from finding out how a clock works, but I still apply a kind of reductionism to social constructions, and well, pretty much everything. Social constructions, for example, have histories - origins and evolution - that I greatly enjoy digging into. You can read about how basketball originated, and what its creator was thinking when he selected the rules.
Sure, I see what you mean. But you can't just change the rules of basketball because you don't think they fit what the creator was trying to do. Similarly, the relevant reduction for ethics is cultural evolution and evolutionary psychology, but those fields of study won't tell you how to act.
ETA: Can't, not can. Oops.