= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
torekp comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - 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 (343)
The law must keep its promises? That doesn't sound particularly Utilitarian, or even particularly consequentialist. Deontologists could endorse the focus on the distinction between behaviors that are responsive to praise/blame and those, like the development of cancer, that are not. Or to put it another way, on the distinction between behaviors that are responsive to talk and those that are not. Here, "talk" includes self-talk, which includes much reasoning.
In this case, the law must "keep its promises" because of what would follow if it turned out that the law didn't actually matter. That's a very consequentialist notion.
I'm just trying to point out that we can agree with a central point of Yvain's post without endorsing consequentialism. For example, Anthony Ellis <pdf> offers a deontological deterrence-based justification of punishment.
The same goes for Holmes's quip, even if in his case it was motivated by consequentialist reasoning. Especially if we take "your act was inevitable for you" to be an (overblown) restatement of the simple fact of causal determination of action.
Oh, right. Yeah, sure - I agree with that.