= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SusanBrennan comments on A sense of logic - 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 (269)
Since this is LessWrong and there's a strong leaning towards a certain view of normative ethics, I had better ask this before I go any further. Would you consider any form of deontology or virtue ethics to be a "decent moral theory"? It feels like I should check this before commenting any further. I know, for example, that at least one person here (not naming names) has openly said that all non-consequentialist approaches to ethics are "insane".
I am not one of those who thinks non-consequentialist ethics are inherently nonsense. Reflecting on my position slightly, I was saying:
1) A "decent" moral system will very likely have the property that misleading others about one's preferences will be advantageous to the individual, but bad for the group.
2) Telepathy makes misleading others about one's preferences more difficult. That assumes telepathy is essentially involuntary mind-reading. If it is more like reliable cell phone service, then I'm not sure telepathy would make any moral system easier to implement.
Telepathy that's more like reliable cellphone service would make a lot of general societal things, including any widely-agreed-upon moral system, easier to implement because transaction cost reductions benefit everyone involved.
I expect that if telepathy of this sort were common, self-deception would be even more common than it already is.