4 ms·
I think what we have here is a terminological mix-up -- it sounds like you're conflating virtues [1], rules [2], dogma (in the non-Catholic sense), and conseque
by pjscott 4y ago
I think what we have here is a terminological mix-up -- it sounds like you're conflating virtues [1], rules [2], dogma (in the non-Catholic sense), and consequentialist [3] utility functions [4]. The post you're replying to is well aware of the is/ought distinction that the article is talking about.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
- nuancebydefault 4y agoThanks for this more profound insight! I still do not understand parent comment... I think if the utility function (based on credits based on "a" type of ethic) is ill described, rationality will not bring you far, it stays on the phylosophical level.