5 ms·
You're right. We are unable to be full consequentialist because the computational cost of seeing all ends is infinite, and unable to be full deontologist becaus
by sooheon 4y ago
You're right. We are unable to be full consequentialist because the computational cost of seeing all ends is infinite, and unable to be full deontologist because competing heuristics are arbitrarily instantiated and mutually contradictory. Even if we're stuck in the middle forever, I know which way I'd strive.
- rsj_hn 4y agoReal heuristics, of course, are not arbitrary, they are the result of trial and error processes where societies and people with differing moral systems compete with each other, proving the fitness of their heuristic by surviving while less fit heuristics fail. I'll go with the results of trial and error over long time horizons rather than blank slate theoretical calculations any day.
- sooheon 4y agoHeuristic selection as you describe is evolutionary. So the meme that survives may not have any bearing on human flourishing, just on its own viral ability to spread. Fitness of the heuristic is orthogonal to human benefit. Further, when multiple heuristics are directly in conflict, it is up to the individual to make the final moral decision. The choice to reject one heuristic over another must be based in some moral calculus. Finally, who said anything about blank slate? That's a clear straw man, as it's only logical for consequentialists to take current heuristics and their adherents into account.