= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Nonperson Predicates - 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 (162)
This sentence seems to imply a deontological moral framework, where rights and rules are things-by-themselves, as opposed to guidelines which help a society optimize whatever-it-is-it-wants-to-optimize. There do exist deontologists in LessWrong, but many of us are consequentialists instead.
Can't I use the word "rights" without losing my status as a consquentialist? I simply use the concept of a "being with a right to live" as a shortening for "a being for which murdering would, in the majority of circumstances and all else being equal, be very likely to be a poor moral choice". You can respect the rights of something without holding a deontological view that rights are somehow the fundamental definition of morality.