Peterdjones 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: lessdazed 24 July 2011 01:13:22AM 2 points [-]

Rather than take the "horrible consequences" tack, I'll go in the other direction. How possible is it that something can be deontologically right or wrong if that something is something no being cares about, nor do they care about any of its consequences, by any extrapolation of their wants, likes, conscious values, etc., nor should they think others care? Is it logically possible?

a rights-holder may, at eir option, waive any and all rights ey has, so uncoerced suicide or assisted suicide is not wrong...the would-be murderer who doesn't know his gun is unloaded.

Comment author: Peterdjones 18 January 2013 06:21:49PM 0 points [-]

Kant's answer, greatly simplified, is that rational agents will care about following moral rules, because that is part of rationality.