fubarobfusco comments on Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided - Less Wrong

102 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 March 2007 06:53PM

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

Comments (179)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 18 January 2013 01:08:48PM *  4 points [-]

This is a flaw with (ETA: simpler versions of) consequentialism: no one can accurately predict the long range consequences of their actions. But it is unreasonable to hold someone culpable, to blame them, for what they cannot predict. So the consequentialist notion of good and bad actions doesn't translate directly into what we want from a pratical moral theory, guidance as to apportion blame and praise. This line of thinking can lead to a kind of fusion of deontology and consequentialism: we praise someone for following the rules ("as a rule, try to save a life where you can") even if the consequences were unwelcome ("The person you saved was a mass murderer");

Comment author: JGWeissman 18 January 2013 04:38:52PM 4 points [-]

So the consequentialist notion of good and bad actions doesn't translate directly into what we want from a pratical moral theory, guidance as to apportion blame and praise.

What I want out of a moral theory is to know what I ought to do.

As far as blame and praise go, consequentialism with game theory tells you how to use a system of blame and praise provide good incentives for desired behavior.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 18 January 2013 05:47:18PM 1 point [-]

What I want out of a moral theory is to know what I ought to do.

Knowledge without motivation may lend itself to akrasia. It would also be useful for a moral theory to motivate us to do what we ought to do.