DoubleReed comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - Less Wrong

77 Post author: Yvain 01 November 2011 06:28PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (694)
Tags: survey meta

Comments (694)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DoubleReed 01 November 2011 03:10:47PM 10 points [-]

Filled out the survey. Neat!

I didn't know those versions of morality. There wasn't an option for "don't know" but I guess leaving it blank is the same thing.

Comment author: RobinZ 01 November 2011 04:17:54PM 10 points [-]
  • Consequentialism: anything is good which has the preferred results.
  • Deontology: behavior is good when it comports with the given moral code.
  • Virtue ethics: people are good when they are possessed of the proper character traits.

To modify an example from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Good Samaritan is widely agreed to be a good person, but the reasons vary:

  • A consequentialist calls them good because they improved the life of the victim they stopped to help;
  • A deontologist calls them good because they acted in accordance with moral edicts such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
  • A virtue ethicist calls them good because they have a charitable and benevolent nature.
Comment author: bbleeker 03 November 2011 01:49:52PM 2 points [-]

Hm... maybe I am a consequentialist, after all. But I try hard not to think of people as good or bad. What the Good Samaritan did was a good thing, because it helped the victim. And of course people with a charitable and benevolent nature will tend to do good things more often, as will those who follow good moral edicts.

Comment author: RobinZ 03 November 2011 07:48:23PM 1 point [-]

Sure - that attitude would be entirely compatible with consequentialism.

Comment author: DoubleReed 03 November 2011 06:42:40PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, I guess I'm a deontologist until proven otherwise.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 November 2011 07:32:56PM 1 point [-]

Until proven otherwise?

Can you unpack that a little? What would such a proof look like?

Comment author: DoubleReed 03 November 2011 07:37:21PM *  2 points [-]

Haha, I don't know. Given that I was just introduced to it, I don't know even really know the arguments for/against. I've so far only come up with arguments in my head, and they point me toward deontologist.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit