sorry—it seems that what is happening here is you are arguing against deontological bars being useful as ways to organize society. that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to argue. i haven’t thought about it deeply, but i suspect i agree with you.
like, in this case, we’re starting with a hard rule (“do not murder”), and then toning it down with all of these questions of intent/proportionality/circumstance. then you say “doesn’t that make it better?”
yes! yes it does. it makes it a better rule. a society that follows the nuanced version will—i suspect—be more aligned and prosperous than one that follows the hard line.
we have made it a better rule by relaxing one particular constraint: that it should be a deontological bar.
I’m not arguing against deontological bars? I’m just saying that common deontological bars often have elements of intent inherent in what is acutally barred. So in the murder example, I agree that there should be and many people follow a deontological bar against murder, but that murder (as it is often defined and is generally thought of colloquially) requires intentional killing. Its not a question of whether the line is hard or soft, its a question of what is actually barred. Do you agree that when people speak of a deontological bar against killing, they really mean something more like what I have called “murder”?
sorry—it seems that what is happening here is you are arguing against deontological bars being useful as ways to organize society. that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to argue. i haven’t thought about it deeply, but i suspect i agree with you.
like, in this case, we’re starting with a hard rule (“do not murder”), and then toning it down with all of these questions of intent/proportionality/circumstance. then you say “doesn’t that make it better?”
yes! yes it does. it makes it a better rule. a society that follows the nuanced version will—i suspect—be more aligned and prosperous than one that follows the hard line.
we have made it a better rule by relaxing one particular constraint: that it should be a deontological bar.
I’m not arguing against deontological bars? I’m just saying that common deontological bars often have elements of intent inherent in what is acutally barred. So in the murder example, I agree that there should be and many people follow a deontological bar against murder, but that murder (as it is often defined and is generally thought of colloquially) requires intentional killing. Its not a question of whether the line is hard or soft, its a question of what is actually barred. Do you agree that when people speak of a deontological bar against killing, they really mean something more like what I have called “murder”?