Jack 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 03 February 2010 06:03:12PM 3 points [-]

The quintessential deontologist is Kant. I haven't paid too much attention to his primary sources because he's miserable to read, but what Kant scholars say about him doesn't sound like what goes through my head. One place I can think of where we'd diverge is that Kant doesn't forbid cruelty to animals except inasmuch as it can deaden humane intuitions; my principle of needless destruction forbids it on its own demerits. The other publicly deontic philosopher I know of is Ross, but I know him only via a two-minute unsympathetic summary which - intentionally or no - made his theory sound very slapdash, like he has sympathies to the "it's sleek and pretty" defense of utilitarianism but couldn't bear to actually throw in his lot with it.

The justification is indeed embedded in my concept of personhood. Welcome to personhood, here's your rights and responsibilities! They're part of the package.

Comment author: Jack 04 February 2010 05:55:42AM 2 points [-]

So I think I have pretty good access to the concept of personhood but the existence of rights isn't obvious to me from that concept. Is there a particular feature of personhood that generates these rights?

Comment author: Alicorn 04 February 2010 02:09:28PM 1 point [-]

That's one of my not-finished things, is spelling out exactly why I think you get there from here.