Wei_Dai comments on Are Deontological Moral Judgments Rationalizations? - Less Wrong

37 Post author: lukeprog 16 August 2011 04:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (168)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 20 August 2011 07:16:25AM 4 points [-]

They associate utilitarianism with "the greatest good for the greatest number," and then imagine things like "it is for the good of this great Nation that you be drafted to dig ditches this year" and they shudder.

That shudder isn't necessarily a "confabulation."

I don't think Luke or Greene is saying that the shudder is confabulation. The shudder is the intuitive emotional response. What they're calling "confabulation" is making up a deontological rule, such as "everyone has a right not to be drafted for anything except defense", or something like that, to explain/justify the shudder.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 August 2011 10:45:43PM 3 points [-]

What they're calling "confabulation" is making up a deontological rule, such as "everyone has a right not to be drafted for anything except defense", or something like that, to explain/justify the shudder.

If you don't make a deontological rule and insist that it have no exceptions, in any particular case you will be tempted to find an excuse why it doesn't apply. As Eliezer said in his post The Ends Don't Justify the Means:

And so we have the bizarre-seeming rule: "For the good of the tribe, do not cheat to seize power even when it would provide a net benefit to the tribe."

Indeed it may be wiser to phrase it this way: If you just say, "when it seems like it would provide a net benefit to the tribe", then you get people who say, "But it doesn't just seem that way - it would provide a net benefit to the tribe if I were in charge."

Comment author: lukeprog 20 August 2011 05:21:08PM 0 points [-]

Correct.