= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Xachariah 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)
In principle, you can construct a utility function that represents a deontologist who abhors murder. You give a large negative value to the deontologist who commits murder. But it's kludgy. If a consequentialism talks about murder being bad, they mean that it's bad if anybody does it.
It is technically true that all of these ethical systems are equivalent, but saying which ethical system you use nonetheless carries a lot of meaning.
If you choose your ethical system based on how it fulfils a task, you are already a consequentialist. Deontology and virtue ethics don't care about getting things done.
All ethical frameworks are equal the same way that all graphing systems are equal.
But I'll be damned if it isn't easier to graph circles with polar coordinates than it is with Cartesian coordinates.
Easier if the center of the circle is at the origin of the coordinate system.