= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lavalamp comments on Ethical frameworks are isomorphic - 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 (43)
On isomorphism: every version of utilitarianism I know of leads to a repugnant conclusion of one way or another, or even multiple ones. I don't think that deontology and virtue ethics are nearly as susceptible. In other words, you cannot construct a utilitarian equivalent of an ethical system which is against suffering (without explicitly minimizing some negative utility) but does not value torture over dust specks.
EDIT: see the link in this lukeprog's comment. for limits of consequentialization.
Are you saying that some consequentialist systems don't even have deontological approximations?
It seems like you can have rules of the form "Don't torture... unless by doing the torture you can prevent an even worse thing" provides a checklist to compare badness ...so I'm not convinced?
Actually, this one is trivially true, with the rule being "maximize the relevant utility". I am saying the converse need not be true.