I feel like I ought to make my ritual attempt to fly the deontology flag on this site by reference to the possibility of attaching do/don’t do evaluations directly to actions without reference to any outcome-evaluations at all.
Yet… the end of this post might actually be the most interesting argument I’ve heard in a while for the existence and permanence of what Rawls calls “the fact of reasonable pluralism”—Elizer offers us the useful notion that interconnections between our values are so computationally messy that there is just no way to reconcile them all and come to agreement on actual social positions without artifically constraining the decision-space.
I feel like I ought to make my ritual attempt to fly the deontology flag on this site by reference to the possibility of attaching do/don’t do evaluations directly to actions without reference to any outcome-evaluations at all.
Yet… the end of this post might actually be the most interesting argument I’ve heard in a while for the existence and permanence of what Rawls calls “the fact of reasonable pluralism”—Elizer offers us the useful notion that interconnections between our values are so computationally messy that there is just no way to reconcile them all and come to agreement on actual social positions without artifically constraining the decision-space.