Eugine_Nier 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.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (145)
Seems to me that even supposedly deontologic arguments usually have some (not always explicit) explanation, such as "...because God wants that" or "...because otherwise people will not like you" or maybe even "...because the famous philosopher Kant would disagree with you". Although I am not sure whether those explanations were present since the beginning, or whether just my consequentialist mind adds them when modeling other people. Do you know real deontologists that really believe "Do X and don't do Y" without any explanation whatsoever? (How would they react if you ask them "why"?)
Assuming my model of deontologists is correct, then their beliefs are like "Don't torture people, no matter what the benefits of doing so are, because God does not want you to torture people!" Then all it needs is a charismatic priest who explains that, for some clever theological reasons, God actually does not mind you torturing this specific person in this specific situation. (For other implicit explanations, add other convincing factors.) For a example, a typical deontologist norm "Thou shalt not kill" was violated routinely, often with a clever explanation why it does not apply for this specific class of situations.
Yes, and in my experience consequentialists usually have deontological sounding explanations for their choice of utility function.
How would a conventionalist react if I asked why maximize [utility function X]?
And all that a consequentialist needs to start torturing people is a clever argument for why torturing this specific person in this specific situation maximizes utility.
TO be clear, are you saying they both have the same response or that this is also a valid criticism of consequentialism?
I'm saying this is also a valid criticism of consequentialism.
Thanks for clarifying.