= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whowhowho comments on Philosophical Landmines - 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 (145)
Those don't seem like deontological injunctions to me at all. Can you clarify why you call them that?
I've heard people refer to something that does approximately that job as deontological injunctions. I don't much like the name either.
Do you have a real example of deontology outperforming consequentialism IRL? Bonus: do you have one that isn't just hardcoding a result computed by consequentialism? (not intended to be a challenge, BTW; actually curious, because I've heard a lot of people implying, but can't find any)
I don't see how you could perform a meaningful calculation without presuming which system is actually right. Who wants an efficient programme that yields the wrong results?
That very much depends on who benefits from those wrong results.
so I can say moral system A outperforms moral system B just where A serves my selfish purposes better than B. Hmm. Isn't that a rather amoral way of looking at morality?
No.
It's an honest assessment of the state of the world.
I'm not agreeing with that position, I'm just saying that there are folks who would prefer an efficient program that yielded the wrong results if it benefited them, and would engage in all manner of philosophicalish circumlocutions to justify it to themselves.
That's not very relevant to the benefits or otherwise fo consequentialism and deontology.