= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC 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.