The SBF controversy has not shifted my belief that you should always be sensitive to the relevant arguments pertaining to the specific situation, even when you think you've found good general rules, though of course those general rules may count as relevant arguments.

I don't even care about "utility." You know what my deontology says? Narrow-mindedness is always wrong.

I know you think you've found a rule that's important to follow absolutely and without regard for the reality of what the consequences will be, for the greater good. You haven't.

Having general rules that you consider when they are relevant is great. Having rules that were formed under circumstances wildly more lenient than what reality is going to trap you with, and pretending that reality will continue to be lenient in spite of the evidence so that you can keep following your rules, is stupid.

You solemnly argue that the human brain is too corrupt to sanely run utilitarianism; we must observe the consequences of that? Sure, just permit me to solemnly argue that the human brain is too corrupt to sanely run dogmatism, and we must observe the consequences of that too.

New Comment
2 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 2:08 PM

Is this serious? I find it somewhat ironic that your deontology is completely closed-minded on its belief about narrow-mindedness.

I don't think being somewhat ironic would be slightly worse than being completely insensitive to unfamiliar considerations.