Deontology is distinct in that it says that even if you had a perfect guarantee that an action would have good consequences taking into account all second-order effects, you still shouldn’t do it sometimes if it violates rights. That’s what I was arguing against. The way LessWrong uses these terms is idiosyncratic.
Sorry for the late reply, forgot that I’d posted this on LessWrong an don’t check regularly.
The view you have described—that you should follow deontic norms because it has good consequences—is not deontology. It is a kind of consequentialism of a kind that thinks a big part of producing good consequences is following good norms. This piece wasn’t arguing against that position, and I actually agree with that position! For more see https://utilitarianism.net/types-of-utilitarianism/#multi-level-utilitarianism-versus-single-level-utilitarianism
Deontology is distinct in that it says that even if you had a perfect guarantee that an action would have good consequences taking into account all second-order effects, you still shouldn’t do it sometimes if it violates rights. That’s what I was arguing against. The way LessWrong uses these terms is idiosyncratic.