= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
eli_sennesh comments on A bit of word-dissolving in political discussion - 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 (40)
Sure. But then you've already lapsed into consequentialism, and thus stuck yourself with a mandate to consider the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences. This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do. What they actually do is see an undesirable consequence, and start loudly pointing it out, signaling "Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!"
Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.
This is not what consequentialists actually do either. In particular, I've never seen an actual utility function, much less using one to compute trade-offs.
Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.
Disagreed. The correct consequentialist answer to a real-life trolley problem is to Take a Third Option and not sacrifice any lives, every time. If you find yourself stuck in a perverse situation, then yes, you pull the lever, not because it's a good thing and you're being brave, but because it's the least-bad thing available in your perverse situation invented by philosophers who like perverse situations.
Can you give me some examples of this type of bravery by politicians, Eli?
Politicians might address downsides to their policies by ignoring, hiding, or downplaying them ("There may have been some civilian casualties, but the important thing is..."), calling them a necessary evil ("We protect hate speech to protect all other speech"), or spinning them into a positive good ("My new law inconveniences criminals? Good, let's stick it to 'em!").
But I can't think of any time a politician engaged in the proud bullet-biting you see with philosophers.