= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ikrase comments on Open thread, August 12-18, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (123)
Okay... wow. I somehow managed to get that wrong for all this time? Oh dear.
This one isn't ever formal and rarely meta-ed about, and it's far from universal in highly combative political groups. But it seems distinct from deontologists who think it right to defeat your enemies, and from consequentialists who think it beneficial to defeat their enemies.
Maybe you're talking about moral relativism, which can be a meta-ethical position (what's right or wrong depends on the context) as well as a normative theory.
Are you thinking of a situation where, for example, the bank robbers think it's okay to pull heists, but they concede that it's okay for the police to try to stop heists? And that they would do the same thing if they were police? Kind of like in Heat? Such a great movie.
Yeah, sort of. That's basically the case for which faction membership is not in question and is not mutable.
The only time I've really heard it formalized is in Plato's Republic where one of the naive interlocutors suggests that morality consists of "doing good to one's friends and harm to one's enemies".