[extropy-chat] consequentialism/deontologism discussion

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Thu Apr 26 09:53:57 UTC 2007

On 4/26/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:

> Suppose we believe it will on balance contribute to the overall good if we
> lie, cheat, steal, commit murder or whatever. Perhaps it really will. But
> perhaps we're mistaken and it really won't. _The second possibility is more
> likely_.
> So even from a utilitarian standpoint, it's better to have ethical
> standards that we don't violate, even when we think it's worth doing so in a
> particular case.

Ah, but as you admit you have taken a utilitarian stand as the *real*
ethics. This is rather like a utilitarian saying that we should all take our
ethics as handed down from God on tablets of stone not because it's true,
but because people are more likely to comply.

Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070426/e453cd83/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list