= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SarahC comments on UDT agents as deontologists - 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 (109)
Well, that's the way the post was phrased ("a UDT agent is a deontologist.")
But you could construct a UDT agent that doesn't behave anything like a human deontologist, who acts based upon a function that has nothing to do with rights or virtues or moral laws. That's why I think it's better understood as "All deontologists are UDT" instead of vice versa.
It's easier for me to understand an agent who acts on weird principles (such as those having nothing to do with rights or virtues or moral laws) than an agent who either
thinks that all possible worlds are equally actual, or
doesn't care more for what happens in the actual world than what happens in possible worlds.
So, if I were to think of deontologists as UDT agents, I would be moving them further away from comprehensibility.