= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ThrustVectoring comments on What Deontology gets right - 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 (18)
This all seems to have more to do with rule consequentialism than deontology. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and rule consequentialism has indeed been considered a halfway point between deontology and act consequentialism, but it's worth noting.
Note to self: it's much more difficult to have original thought than I think it is.
Some heuristics for identifying areas in which many thoughts are likely to have already been thought, in the form of questions: is this area of thought old? Is it important? Does it seem plausible that many smart people have thought about it before? Taking the outside view, am I in a position, whether because of historical circumstance or unusual credentials, to reasonably expect not to have the same thoughts about this issue than other smart people have had?
(Failure to use these heuristics is one way to become a crackpot.)
I sympathize. One of my professors jokes about having discovered a new optical illusion, then going to the literature and having the incredible good luck that for once nobody else discovered it first.