[extropy-chat] consequentialism/deontologism discussion
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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat