= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Virtue Ethics 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 (178)
This is a useful dilemma. What are some of the possible motivators for refusing to become a gangster?
You don't really care about saving the world; the only consequence that actually matters to you is being a nice person.
You don't trust your conclusion that Operation: Gangsta will save the world; you place so much heuristic faith in virtues that you actually expect any calculation that outputs a recommendation to become a gangster to be fatally flawed.
You don't trust your values not to evolve away from saving the world if you become a gangster; it might be impossible or extremely risky to save the world by thugging out because being a thug makes you care less about saving the world; you might have a career of evil and then just spend the proceeds on casinos, hitmen, and mansions.
The second and the third are the most convincing reasons, but EY already explained how those follow from using deontology rather than virtue ethics as a heuristic for handling the fact that you are a consequentialist running on corrupt hardware. This calls into question how much insight Will_Newsome has provided with this article.
His point in that article, if you'll recall, is that deontology is consequentialism, just one meta-level up and with the knowledge that your hardware distorts your moral cognition in predictable ways.