DavidAgain comments on Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans) - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 October 2008 09:00PM

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

Comments (87)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DavidAgain 12 March 2011 11:19:05AM 0 points [-]

Very interesting article (though as has been commented, the idea has philosophical precedent). Presumably this would go alongside the idea of upholding institutions/principles. If I can steal whenever I think it's for the best, it means each theft is only culpable if the courts can prove that it caused more harm than good overall, which is impractical. We also have to consider that even if we judge correctly that we can break a rule, others will see that as meaning the rule can be ditched at will. One very good expression of the importance of laws starts 2 minutes into this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nJR15e0F4

I think we have to be careful here, though. I intuitively agree with a utility-maximisation sort of ethics, but also find breaking certain deontological laws a very upsetting idea. This argument is therefore an all-too-convenient way to maintain both, and I wonder whether it's a detached rational analysis or a post hoc rationalisation and justification of our conflicting ethical tendencies.