= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
scrafty comments on Some thoughts on relations between major ethical systems - 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 (32)
Your description of deontological ethics sounds closer to rule consequentialism, which is a different concept. Deontology means that following certain rules is good in and of itself, not because they lead to better decisionmaking (in terms of promoting some other good) in situations of uncertainty.
It sounds more like act utilitarianism to me. Rule utilitarianism is when you notice that lying usually has bad consequences, and therefore decide to lie even when lying has good consequences. Coming up with heuristics like "don't lie, unless you have a really good reason" or even "don't lie, even if you think you have a really good reason" is still something you do with the sole intent of improving the consequences. It is therefore act utilitarianism.
Ehh, I think that's pretty much what rule util means, though I'm not that familiar with the nuances of the definition so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Rule util posits that we follow those rules with the intent of promoting the good; that's why it's called rule utilitarianism.
Wikipedia link.
I'm pretty sure the first time I read this, it specifically stated that using rules of thumb is not the same as rule utilitarianism. As it is, it's less clear, but I'm pretty sure it's still saying that they are two different ideals, rather than just different strategies.
Just to see if I'm following correctly:
If I want to follow the rule "optimize actions for some utility function X", rule consequentialism says I do this because of the result of the utility function X, and my terminal value is X()¹, which I am trivially doing better decisionmaking for by using the aforementioned rule.
On the other hand, deontology says that I'm following that rule because X itself is good, regardless of whether I value X() or not. This may be because that is simply how human brains are programmed and that is what they do, or by some philosophically-vague decree from higher powers, or something else, but the key point being that X() is completely irrelevant?
1) Programmer slang. If I say my value is "X", that means I value the function, but if I say X(), that means I value the output of the function.
I think that's accurate, though maybe not because the programming jargon is unnecessarily obfuscating. The basic point is that following the rule is good in and of itself. You shouldn't kill people because there is a value in not killing that is independent of the outcome of that choice.
As an attempt to remove the programming jargon (I don't know of any words or expressions which express the same concept without math or programming jargon of some kind):
For that example, skipping the traditional "Kill this one or five others die!" dilemma, if we suppose the person to be killed will revive on their own and thereby become immortal, with no additionnal side effects, the deontological rule still takes precedent and therefore it is good to let the person later die of old age. Rule consequentialism, in such a corner case, would want the person to end up immortal.
Correct?
That would be a form of deontology, yes. I'm not sure which action neo-Kantians would actually endorse in that situation, though.