My point is that once you add UDT to consequentialism it becomes very similar to deontology.
UDT doesn’t need to be added to consequentialism, or the reverse. UDT is already based on consequentialist assumptions and any reasonably advanced way of thinking about consequences will result in a decision theory along those lines.
It is only people’s muddled intuitions about UDT and similar reflexive decision theories that makes it seem to them that they are remotely deontological. Particularly those inclined to use UDT as an “excuse” to cooperate when they just want that to be the right thing to do for other reasons.
For example, Kant’s Categorical Imperative can be thought of as a special case of UDT.
It is only people’s muddled intuitions about UDT and similar reflexive decision theories that makes it seem to them that they are remotely deontological.
From what I infer, people who think deontologically already seem to reason “The most effective decision to make as evaluated by UDT is Cooperate in this situation in which CDT picks Defect. This feels all moral to me. UDT must be on my side. I claim UDT is deontological because we agree regarding this particular issue.” This leads to people saying “Using UDT/TDT reasoning...” in places where UDT doesn’t reason in any such way.
UDT is “deontological” if and only if that deontological system consists of or is equivalent to the rule “It is an ethical duty to behave like a consequentialist implementing UDT”. ie. It just isn’t.
UDT doesn’t need to be added to consequentialism, or the reverse. UDT is already based on consequentialist assumptions and any reasonably advanced way of thinking about consequences will result in a decision theory along those lines.
It is only people’s muddled intuitions about UDT and similar reflexive decision theories that makes it seem to them that they are remotely deontological. Particularly those inclined to use UDT as an “excuse” to cooperate when they just want that to be the right thing to do for other reasons.
Better yet, it can be thought of as just not UDT at all.
Why?
You tell me. It’s not my confusion.
From what I infer, people who think deontologically already seem to reason “The most effective decision to make as evaluated by UDT is Cooperate in this situation in which CDT picks Defect. This feels all moral to me. UDT must be on my side. I claim UDT is deontological because we agree regarding this particular issue.” This leads to people saying “Using UDT/TDT reasoning...” in places where UDT doesn’t reason in any such way.
UDT is “deontological” if and only if that deontological system consists of or is equivalent to the rule “It is an ethical duty to behave like a consequentialist implementing UDT”. ie. It just isn’t.
Rather what distinction are you drawing between UDT/TDT-like decision theories and Kant’s CI?