Explanations of deontological responses to moral dilemmas

post by Jayson_Virissimo · 2017-04-10T03:43:57.398Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 3 comments

This is a link post for http://judgmentmisguided.blogspot.com/2017/02/explanations-of-deontological-responses.html

Contents

3 comments

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Lumifer · 2017-04-10T15:49:09.603Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

deontological responses ... arise from some sort of error, or poor thinking.

I don't understand the complaint. Deontology is simple: you just apply the fixed rules. If in a particular situation the fixed rules lead to an undesirable outcome, that's too bad but that's how deontology works -- it is explicitly NOT consequentialism -- and that has nothing do with "poor thinking".

Replies from: tukabel
comment by tukabel · 2017-04-11T20:33:42.652Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

or as generalissimus Stalin would say: "No man, no problem"

comment by Jayson_Virissimo · 2017-04-10T03:45:35.481Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

...deontological responses (DRs) seem to be equivalent to responses that demonstrate cognitive biases in non-moral situations. For example, the omission bias favors harms of omission over less harmful harms caused by acts, in both moral and non-moral situations (Ritov & Baron, 1990). This similarity suggests that the DRs arise from some sort of error, or poor thinking. Much evidence indicates that the cognitive processes supporting moral and non-moral judgments are largely the same (e.g., Greene, 2007). If this is true, the question arises of what sort of thinking is involved, and when it occurs.