= 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)
Why those particular rights? It seems rather convenient that they mostly arrive at beneficial consequences and jive with human intuitions. Kind of like how biblical apologists have explanations that just happen to coincide with our current understanding of history and physics.
If you lived in a world where your system of rights didn't typically lead to beneficial consequences, would you still believe them to be correct?
Agreed. It is also rather convenient that maximizing preference satisfaction rarely involves violating anyone's rights and mostly jives with human intuitions.
And thats because normative ethics is just about trying to come up with nice sounding theories to explain our ethical intuitions.
Umm... torture vs dust specks is both counterintuitive and violates rights. Utilitarian consequentialists also flip the switch in the trolley problem, again violating rights.
It doesn't sound nice or explain our intuitions. Instead, the goal is the most good for the most people.
I said:
Those two examples are contrived to demonstrate the differences between utilitarianism and other theories. They hardly represent typical moral judgments.