= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GilPanama comments on Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted - 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 (118)
"But what's actually right probably doesn't include a component of making oneself stupid with regard to the actual circumstances in order to prevent other parts of one's mind from hijacking the decision.
What you probably meant: "Rational minds should have a rational theory of ethics; this leads to better consequences."
My late-night reading: "A deontological theory of ethics is not actually right. It is wrong. Morally wrong."
I am not sure what caused me to read it this way, but it cracked me up.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that it's currently late at night and I find myself agreeing with both those readings. "Deontological ethics is morally wrong" sounds about accurate.
The fact that it sounds accurate is what makes it a funny category error, rather than a boring category error. "2 + 2 = 3 is morally wrong" is not funny. "Deontological ethics is morally wrong" is funny.
It calls to mind a scenario of a consequentialist saying: "True, Deontologist Dan rescued that family from a fire, which was definitely a good thing... but he did it on the basis of an morally wrong system of ethics."
That''s how I reacted to it, anyway. It's been a day, I've had more sleep, and I STILL find the idea funny. Every time I seriously try to embrace consequentialist ethics, it's because I think that deontological ethics depend on self-deception.
And lying is bad.
EDIT: I am in no way implying that other consequentialists arrive at consequentialism by this reasoning. I am simply noting that the idea that consequentialist principles are better and more rational, so we should be rational consequentialists (regardless of the results), is very attractive to my own mental hardware, and also very funny.
Cracked you up? Rather than just seeming like a straightforward implication of conflicting moral systems?
I think it is not a straightforward implication at all. Maybe this rephrasing would make the joke clearer:
"A deontological theory of ethics is not actually right. It is morally wrong, in principle."
If that doesn't help:
"It is morally wrong to make decisions for deontological reasons."
What makes it funny is that moment wherein the reader (or at least, this reader) briefly agrees with it before the punchline hits.
I understand what you intended to be the joke. I just don't think you get it.
This is a straightforward implication of having a consequentialist morality. Making moral decisions for deontological reasons and not because of the consequences according to the same value function is, by that standard, immoral. It's not a big deal.
Mind you, I have made jokes along the same lines myself at times. With the implication "it's funny 'cos it's true!". I begin to see why it had a mixed reception.