Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

MugaSofer comments on Philosophical Landmines - Less Wrong

83 [deleted] 08 February 2013 09:22PM

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

Comments (145)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 12 February 2013 05:32:11AM *  3 points [-]

Seems to me that even supposedly deontologic arguments usually have some (not always explicit) explanation,

Yes, and in my experience consequentialists usually have deontological sounding explanations for their choice of utility function.

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"?)

How would a conventionalist react if I asked why maximize [utility function X]?

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.

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.

Comment author: MugaSofer 20 February 2013 12:13:51PM -2 points [-]

How would a conventionalist react if I asked why maximize [utility function X]?

TO be clear, are you saying they both have the same response or that this is also a valid criticism of consequentialism?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 February 2013 04:52:45AM 3 points [-]

I'm saying this is also a valid criticism of consequentialism.

Comment author: MugaSofer 21 February 2013 10:49:23AM -2 points [-]

Thanks for clarifying.