= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open Thread for February 3 - 10 - 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 (331)
Right. Many people use the word "utilitarianism" to refer to what is properly named "consequentialism". This annoys me to no end, because I strongly feel that true utilitarianism is a decoherent idea (it doesn't really work mathematically, if anyone wants me to explain further, I'll write a post on it.)
But when these terms are used interchangeably, it gives the impression that consequentialism is tightly bound to utilitarianism, which is strictly false. Consequentialism is a very useful and elegant moral meta-system. It should not be shouldered out by utilitarianism.
Please do. I think it also would be valuable to refresh people's memories of the difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism, and to show many moral philosophies can fall under the latter.
I tend to do that.
What is the difference? According to Wikipedia, Egoism and Ethical Altruism are Consequentialist but not Utilitarian. I think it might have something to do with your utility function involving everyone equally, instead of ignoring you or ignoring everyone but you.
Because of interpersonal utility comparisons, or what? That might affect some forms of preference utilitarianism. Hedonistic and "objective welfare" varieties of utilitarianism seem like coherent views to me.