Thanks. Fixed it.

I remembered it vaguely, and found the more exact quote on the ASOIAF Quotes page on TvTropes since I didn't want to search through the Arya chapters to find the exact quote, though I was prepared to.

I could've sworn it was from both of them, and, thus, from the books originally...

Gods? There are no 'gods', young bravo. There is only one God, and his name is Death - Him of Many Faces. And there is only one prayer that one says to him - 'Not Today'.

Syrio Forel, Game of Thrones based on A Song of Ice and Fire by George R R Martin

"Sure, but surely 2 orgasms are better than 1, so, since you're at 1/399 for turning into a whale, and a single orgasm is equal to 1/400 chance of turning into a whale, so wouldn't two orgasms be good enough to at least require 1/398 chance of turning into a whale?"

"What if I give you two orgasms?"

A straight line may be the shortest distance between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting.

The Third Doctor

If the number of deontologists isn't big enough to power our inference, the stats should tell us this. There are some though.

That's true. Perhaps we could sort them by what their results with "good" show us about which normative ethical theory they follow, then compare the results of each of the groupings between "good" and "awesome". That would show us the results without consequentialists acting as white noise.

And I think going outside LW is unnecessary. This essay is hardly aimed at people-in-general.

Good point, though it would be interesting to see if it could be applied to people outside of LW.

...Am I the only who is wondering how being turned into a hale would even work and whether or not that would be awesome?

Probably not possible since it isn't even a noun.

I meant that we should be looking at the awesomeness of outcomes and not actions, and that "awesome" is more effective at prompting this behavior than "good". It looks like you get it, if I understand you correctly.

Oh! That does make sense. I can see your point with that.

I find that somewhat implausible. If they are a hardcore explicit deontologist who,against the spirit of this article, has attempted to import their previous moral beliefs/confusions into their interpretation of "awesomism", then yeah. For random folks who intuitively lean towards deontology for "good", I think "awesome" is still going to be substantially more consequentialist.

Possibly. I'm honestly not sure which hypothesis would be more correct, at the moment. Testing it would probably be a good idea, if we had the resources to do it. (Do we have the resources for that? I wouldn't expect it, but weirder things have happened.)

Maybe next year's survey could have some scenarios that ask for an awesomeness ranking, and some other scenarios that ask for a goodness raking, and some more with a rightness ranking. Then we could see how people's intuitions vary with whether they claim to be deontologist or consequentialist, and with prompting wording. This could put the claims in the OP here on a more solid footing than "this works for me".

I don't think that would work. People here tend to be more consequentialist than I've seen from people not from here, so we'd probably not be able to see as much of a difference. Plus, the people here are hardly what I'd call normal and are more homogeneous than a more standard set of people. To effectively test that, we'd have to conduct that survey with a more random group of people. I mean, that survey would work, but the sample should be different than the contributors of LessWrong.