DC seems like a bad name. “Deontic” and “Consequentialism” are both heavily-loaded words in ethics, and imply a great deal more than simply a ‘rule’. Also, combining the names of two inconsistent ethical theories should be reserved for something much cleverer than this.
Point noted. I’d be grateful if you have a more appropriate suggestion.
I don’t mind the knock on the theory’s cleverness, but could you elaborate? I’d like to improve the theory or see what intractable errors it has if that’s not possible. I don’t think anyone has commented on why the theory doesn’t make sense, if someone disagrees it would be great to hear where they think I’ve gone wrong. Also, are you unsatisfied in its solution to the Mere Addition Paradox?
DC seems like a bad name. “Deontic” and “Consequentialism” are both heavily-loaded words in ethics, and imply a great deal more than simply a ‘rule’. Also, combining the names of two inconsistent ethical theories should be reserved for something much cleverer than this.
Point noted. I’d be grateful if you have a more appropriate suggestion.
I don’t mind the knock on the theory’s cleverness, but could you elaborate? I’d like to improve the theory or see what intractable errors it has if that’s not possible. I don’t think anyone has commented on why the theory doesn’t make sense, if someone disagrees it would be great to hear where they think I’ve gone wrong. Also, are you unsatisfied in its solution to the Mere Addition Paradox?