pjeby comments on Virtue Ethics for Consequentialists - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Will_Newsome 04 June 2010 04:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (178)
Tags: ethics morality winning

Comments (178)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 04 June 2010 06:29:39PM -1 points [-]

Instead of trying to get most good-per-buck people donate because this "make them a better person" or "is the right thing to do" - essentially throwing this all away.

Er, by your values, maybe. They could just as easily argue that good-per-buck reasoning reduces the amount of love and charity in everyone's life, making the world an experientially poorer place, and that there's more to life than practical consequences.

Comment author: thomblake 04 June 2010 06:37:25PM 2 points [-]

there's more to life than practical consequences.

I think you'd need to be specific about your definitions for 'practical' and 'consequences' to argue for that. I think in hereabouts parlance, you're saying something like "Your utility function might put a higher value on 'love' and 'charity' than on strangers' lives". Which would be a harder bullet to bite.

Comment author: pjeby 04 June 2010 09:01:28PM -1 points [-]

I think you'd need to be specific about your definitions for 'practical' and 'consequences' to argue for that.

I was saying that "they could just as easily argue" -- ie. I was using the terms that those people would use.

Comment author: ata 06 June 2010 08:26:45AM 0 points [-]

They could just as easily argue that good-per-buck reasoning reduces the amount of love and charity in everyone's life, making the world an experientially poorer place

But that is an appeal to practical consequences.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit