> deontologists must hold that the fact that an action causes other people to act wrongly counts in favor of it
I don't think this follows. The moderate deontologist has to hold that an action averting sufficiently bad consequences counts in favor of it, and the causal chain could involve more people acting wrongly, but it's the number of lives saved that we're counting rather than the number of wrong actions. If the situation suddenly changed so that the same number of people were at risk of dying from permissible actions rather than wrong actions, that wouldn't alter the calculus. And that's what one should expect: the moderate deontologist is behaving like a consequentialist when the consequences are large enough.
Isn’t that like some game theory stuff but not an actual counter argument to deontology? I mean, you could formulate meta deontologish view that doesn’t violate FUL: something about Nash equilibrium for games like the game you introduced so that people have to play the role and that decision to play the role counts as a FUL rule
> deontologists must hold that the fact that an action causes other people to act wrongly counts in favor of it
I don't think this follows. The moderate deontologist has to hold that an action averting sufficiently bad consequences counts in favor of it, and the causal chain could involve more people acting wrongly, but it's the number of lives saved that we're counting rather than the number of wrong actions. If the situation suddenly changed so that the same number of people were at risk of dying from permissible actions rather than wrong actions, that wouldn't alter the calculus. And that's what one should expect: the moderate deontologist is behaving like a consequentialist when the consequences are large enough.
Tangential: Just curious are there any good young philosophers these days putting forth a normative ethical position that they call Kantianism?
Isn’t that like some game theory stuff but not an actual counter argument to deontology? I mean, you could formulate meta deontologish view that doesn’t violate FUL: something about Nash equilibrium for games like the game you introduced so that people have to play the role and that decision to play the role counts as a FUL rule
My favourite Kantians are basically consequentialists
I love reading your stuff. It's never anything that I would identify as philo-sophia, but the logic puzzles are always fun.
What is it called when a person would kill any number of the out group to save one of his in group, and not even feel bad about it?