False. Most people and philosophers are deontological. … I will not give you the evidence for this.
If other people have pointers to evidence on this I would be curious.
My impression is that most people are a mixture of consequentialist and deontological, but everyone who I’ve gotten into a thorough discussion with about this has come down to claiming that the deontological parts of their morality are there because they lead to better outcomes.
You are right. I’m very sorry about that. I mildly panicked seeing that the first comments of an extremely personally relevant post were concentrated on the Swedish issue, which wasn’t the core of my question.
This is the list from their website.
Yes, I know. It’s missing Kristian, and I believe some research associates are not collaborating with FHI anymore.
If other people have pointers to evidence on this I would be curious.
Any trolley problem study will give you the proportion on the normal population. It’s about 80% deontological, 20% utilitarian. Eric Schwitzgebel studies will give you the proportion among philosophers and among ethicists. The evidence for transhumanists is anecdotal. Although I’ve been one for 6 years, have directed a transhumanist NGO and have met many old timers, I’ve never met a deontological transhumanist in my life.
I mildly panicked seeing that the first comments of an extremely personally relevant post were concentrated on the Swedish issue, which wasn’t the core of my question.
Sorry about that. I’m interested in this tangent, but if you’re not I’m fine dropping it.
Any trolley problem study will give you the proportion on the normal population.
I don’t think trolley problems are a good measure of how consequentialist random people are. They’re designed to push us far past our intuitions, to figure out if we still say consequentialist things when it means actively deciding who lives and dies, as well as overriding our generally very strong “don’t kill people” heuristic.
A similar test, in the opposite direction, would be something like “would it be ok for someone to steal food if they would otherwise starve to death?” This pushes people away from “stealing is wrong” towards evaluating outcomes. They may or may not think the societally corrosive effects of stealing outweigh a starvation death postponed, but my experience is they’ll generally consider it in terms of consequences.
You’re being excessively confrontational. I’m curious about how transhumanist Sweden is, and how Swedish the FHI is.
This is the list from their website.
If other people have pointers to evidence on this I would be curious.
My impression is that most people are a mixture of consequentialist and deontological, but everyone who I’ve gotten into a thorough discussion with about this has come down to claiming that the deontological parts of their morality are there because they lead to better outcomes.
You are right. I’m very sorry about that. I mildly panicked seeing that the first comments of an extremely personally relevant post were concentrated on the Swedish issue, which wasn’t the core of my question.
Yes, I know. It’s missing Kristian, and I believe some research associates are not collaborating with FHI anymore.
Any trolley problem study will give you the proportion on the normal population. It’s about 80% deontological, 20% utilitarian. Eric Schwitzgebel studies will give you the proportion among philosophers and among ethicists. The evidence for transhumanists is anecdotal. Although I’ve been one for 6 years, have directed a transhumanist NGO and have met many old timers, I’ve never met a deontological transhumanist in my life.
Sorry about that. I’m interested in this tangent, but if you’re not I’m fine dropping it.
I don’t think trolley problems are a good measure of how consequentialist random people are. They’re designed to push us far past our intuitions, to figure out if we still say consequentialist things when it means actively deciding who lives and dies, as well as overriding our generally very strong “don’t kill people” heuristic.
A similar test, in the opposite direction, would be something like “would it be ok for someone to steal food if they would otherwise starve to death?” This pushes people away from “stealing is wrong” towards evaluating outcomes. They may or may not think the societally corrosive effects of stealing outweigh a starvation death postponed, but my experience is they’ll generally consider it in terms of consequences.
Kristian is no longer working for FHI.
Kristian has returned to Sweden, but is still working remotely part-time for FHI.
Ah, great to hear that Kristian is still involved with FHI!