= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on The Trouble With "Good" - 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 (131)
I'm taking an entire course called "Weird Forms of Consequentialism", so please clarify - when you say "utilitarianism", do you speak here of direct, actual-consequence, evaluative, hedonic, maximizing, aggregative, total, universal, equal, agent-neutral consequentialism?
Uh.....er....maybe!
I'm familiar with Bentham, Mill, Singer, Eliezer, and random snippets of utilitarian theory I picked up here and there. I'm not confident enough with my taxonomy to use quite so many adjectives with confidence. I will add that article to the list of things to read.
I agree that your course sounds awesome. If you hear anything particularly enlightening, please turn it into an LW post.
I may well do that! Thank you for asking.
Edit: I just made a post linking something called two-tier consequentialism to a post of Eliezer's.
This sounds like an awesome course.
It is one. I am taking it for its awesomeness in spite of the professor being a mean person who considered it appropriate to schedule the class from seven to nine-thirty in the evening. (His scheduling decision and his meanness are separate qualities.)