= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DaFranker 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)
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.