Azathoth123 comments on A bit of word-dissolving in political discussion - Less Wrong

2 [deleted] 07 December 2014 05:05PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Azathoth123 09 December 2014 05:03:11AM 3 points [-]

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.

Yes, and deontologists and virtue ethicists consider trade offs between different principles or virtues.

This is not what deontological and virtue-theoretic politicians actually do.

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.

"Look how morally brave I am for being willing to let this sort of thing happen out of pure principle!"

Well, this is also what consequentialists talking about trolley problems sound like.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 December 2014 07:46:55AM -2 points [-]

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.