= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - 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 (470)
What do you mean by this? I know it doesn't mean that humans should generally use consequentialist reasoning, for example.
It means that the right way to come up with deontological rules for humans is by thinking of them in the framework discussed in that post.
Okay, that and your belief that rule-utilitarianism isn't consequantialism leads me to think that your version of consequentialism is roughly "if you're attempting to be an FAI and you're not doing lots of multiplication then you're doing it wrong". Too far off?
Instrumental vs terminal goals. Consequentialism is the ideal, but can't implement it so we have to approximate it with deontological rules due to limitations of our brains. The rules don't get their moral authority from nowhere, they depend on being useful for reaching the actual goal. Or: the only reason we follow the rules is because we know that we'll get a worse outcome if we don't.
It's the difference between - a priori rules and a posteori rules, I guess?
I'm all for a posteori rules, but not a priori rules.