See my other comment in this thread for a link to a paper. Also, anecdotal evidence: I have often seen that people who support more consequentialist inferences display lower social skills and abilities.
not compartmentalizing + consequentialism ⇒ singulatarianism?
This is the proposition that if you are an altruistic consequentialist, and you search heard for the most important charitable cause, you’ll find that Singularitarianism is it. This is defended in detail all over the Singularity Institute site.
Aspergers ⇒ different axiology ?
Most people are not consequentialists, so the first inference implies this one.
I have often seen that people who support more consequentialist inferences display lower social skills and abilities.
The “theory theory of mind” says that autistics lack the ability to simulate someone else’s reasoning. If this is true, and Asperger’s is like autism, people with it might be likely to judge people on the basis of consequences, since they have no model of other peoples’ intentions.
Although, now that I think about it, if someone has no cognitive model, but just observes a large set of instances of
and finds a way to classify them as “good(action)” or “bad(action)”; and if situation + action usually determines outcome; is there any difference between being a consequentialist (making a lookup table of outcome → action), or a deontologist (making a lookup table of situation → action)?
I still don’t understand the connection between Asperger’s and compartmentalizing.
if you are an altruistic consequentialist, and you search heard for the most important charitable cause, you’ll find that Singularitarianism is it.
How does that argument rely on you being a consequentialist? Other ethical systems have to do with, eg., measuring intended consequences instead of actual consequences, not ignoring consequences.
Consequentialism measures intended or rather expected consequences. That’s why you do expected utility maximization. That’s because consequentialism emphasizes forward looking analysis, rather than backward looking blame-allocation.
De facto, other ethical systems tend to not pay attention to the size of consequences, and tend not to involve doing mathematics to work out the best action. They tend to emphasize virtue, following “what you know in your heart is right”, etc.
The biggest dividing-line that I’ve observed between value systems is between people who believe that a decision was right if it produced good consequences; and people who believe that a decision was right if, given the information available when the decision was made, it was expected to have good consequences.
If both are consequentialism, then what terminology do you use to distinguish them?
See my other comment in this thread for a link to a paper. Also, anecdotal evidence: I have often seen that people who support more consequentialist inferences display lower social skills and abilities.
This is the proposition that if you are an altruistic consequentialist, and you search heard for the most important charitable cause, you’ll find that Singularitarianism is it. This is defended in detail all over the Singularity Institute site.
Most people are not consequentialists, so the first inference implies this one.
The “theory theory of mind” says that autistics lack the ability to simulate someone else’s reasoning. If this is true, and Asperger’s is like autism, people with it might be likely to judge people on the basis of consequences, since they have no model of other peoples’ intentions.
Although, now that I think about it, if someone has no cognitive model, but just observes a large set of instances of
and finds a way to classify them as “good(action)” or “bad(action)”; and if situation + action usually determines outcome; is there any difference between being a consequentialist (making a lookup table of outcome → action), or a deontologist (making a lookup table of situation → action)?
I still don’t understand the connection between Asperger’s and compartmentalizing.
How does that argument rely on you being a consequentialist? Other ethical systems have to do with, eg., measuring intended consequences instead of actual consequences, not ignoring consequences.
Consequentialism measures intended or rather expected consequences. That’s why you do expected utility maximization. That’s because consequentialism emphasizes forward looking analysis, rather than backward looking blame-allocation.
De facto, other ethical systems tend to not pay attention to the size of consequences, and tend not to involve doing mathematics to work out the best action. They tend to emphasize virtue, following “what you know in your heart is right”, etc.
The biggest dividing-line that I’ve observed between value systems is between people who believe that a decision was right if it produced good consequences; and people who believe that a decision was right if, given the information available when the decision was made, it was expected to have good consequences.
If both are consequentialism, then what terminology do you use to distinguish them?