You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DaFranker comments on A confusion about deontology and consequentialism - Less Wrong Discussion

5 [deleted] 11 February 2013 07:19PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (85)
Tags: deontology consequentiaism ethics philosophy

Comments (85)

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

Comment author: DaFranker 13 February 2013 05:41:08PM 0 points [-]

Where I differ with you is in the number of black boxes. "We" don't have "a" black box. "Each" of us has our own black box.

This doesn't seem to be a point on which we differ at all. In this later comment I'm saying pretty much the same thing.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if each of us has hundreds of processes that feel like they're calculating "morality", and aren't evaluating according to the same inputs. Some might have outputs that are not quite easy to directly compare, or impossible to.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 13 February 2013 10:49:19PM 0 points [-]

OK. I see your other comment. I think I was mainly responding to this:

However, if one is to ask a moral question without including a specific group-referent (though usually, "all humans" or "most humans" is implicit) from which one can extract that objective algorithm that makes things moral or not

You can't extract "an" objective algorithm even if you do specify a group of people, unless your algorithm returns the population distribution of their moral evaluations, and not a singular moral evaluation. Any singular statistic would be one of an infinite set of statistics on that distribution.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit