orthonormal comments on Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted - Less Wrong

53 Post author: orthonormal 02 September 2011 07:37AM

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

Comments (118)

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

Comment author: Yvain 31 August 2011 08:38:29AM 12 points [-]

What if, instead of deciding whether the doctor murders the patient in secret when she comes to the hospital, we have to decide whether the government (perhaps armed with genetic screening results seized from a police databases and companies like 23andMe) passes a law allowing police to openly kill and confiscate organs from anyone whose organs could presumably save five or more transplant patients?

As far as I can tell, this would have no bad effects beyond the obvious one of killing the people involved - it wouldn't make people less likely to go to hospitals or anything - but it keeps most of the creepiness of the original. Which makes me think although everything you say in this post is both true and important (and I've upvoted it) it doesn't get to the heart of why most people are creeped out by the transplant example.

Comment author: orthonormal 31 August 2011 02:26:53PM 7 points [-]

Fourth reply: people deeply value autonomy.

Fifth reply: While in this case I don't think that the policy is the right consequentialist thing to do, in general I expect consequentialism to endorse some decisions that violate our current commonsense morality. Such decisions are usually seen as moral progress in retrospect.

Comment author: RomanDavis 01 September 2011 04:47:51PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted because fourth reply seems much closer to a true objection.