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.

ChaosMote comments on Does utilitarianism "require" extreme self sacrifice? If not why do people commonly say it does? - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Princess_Stargirl 09 December 2014 08:32AM

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

Comments (99)

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

Comment author: ChaosMote 14 December 2014 04:14:30AM *  0 points [-]

It might be useful to distinguish between a "moral theory" which can be used to compare the morality of different actions and a "moral standard" which is a boolean rule use to determine what is morally 'permissible' and what is morally 'impermissible'.

I think part of the point your post makes is that people really want a moral standard, not a moral theory. I think that makes sense; with a moral system, you have a course of action guaranteed to be "good", whereas a moral theory makes no such guarantee.

Furthermore, I suspect that the commonly accepted societal standard is "you should be as moral as possible", which means that a moral theory is translated into a moral standard by treating the most moral option as "permissible" and everything else as "impermissible". This is exactly what occurs in the text quoted by OP; it takes the utilitarian moral system and projects it on a standard according to which only the most moral option is permissible, making it obligatory.