5 ms·
They are probably not a utilitarian. They are probably suffering distorted deontology of an anti-self sort. Pure consequentialism is computationally implausibl
by JulianMorrison 7y ago
They are probably not a utilitarian. They are probably suffering distorted deontology of an anti-self sort.
Pure consequentialism is computationally implausible. There are seven and a half billion humans. How can you consider them equally? How could you even have enough knowledge to try? I think that people who try to be consequentialist are emulating it and generally poorly.
- Throw_Away_6389 7y agoYou can't know exactly what is best, but you can act to the best of your knowledge. Just because you can't do something perfectly doesn't mean you shouldn't do it as well as possible.
- AstralStorm 7y agoThe fun stuff happens when deontologist meets conflict between their moral or other laws... It always happens and is a fact of life. That's how you can gauge how "lawful" someone is - using simple D&D model of morality. The other axis is altruism vs egoism. So lawful good is deontological altruist, while chaotic evil is non-deontological egoist. There are decent stereotypical descriptions in SRD. https://open5e.com/characters/background.html https://open5e.com/characters/background.html