> but I think there's a problem with saying consequentialism has bad consequences. If it has had bad consequences, they weren't doing it right.
This is a good point, but it appears like the process of attempting to apply consequentialist thinking almost always leads to bad places. Consider, for example, Prohibition or the War on Drugs. These were both really well-intentioned in some ways - they were about having a cleaner, more sober, more healthy society, with less poverty and more prosperity, and less addiction. But the end result is creating an underground drug/alcohol trade, giving rise to organized crime and gangs, and having people now consume less safe homebrewed versions of alcohol and drugs.
I think most if not all well-intentioned consequentialist thinking goes to similar places. There were will always be seductively alluring "Works in theory/destroys the world" type things (separate but equal segregation, communism, prohibition, price controls) - and many of those are in violation of basic deontological ethics of giving people choice, letting them live their lives, and so on. I think the vast majority of drastically bad ideas can be avoided with straightforward, rule based live and let live type ethics, which is what I personally favor after searching around.
"Ends justify the means" has historically always led to bad places - and I think it always will. "Ends justify the means" works in theory, but has consistently historically failed in the real world.
Edit: Just read the Less Wrong article - quite good and I more or less agree with Eliezer there.
This is a good point, but it appears like the process of attempting to apply consequentialist thinking almost always leads to bad places. Consider, for example, Prohibition or the War on Drugs. These were both really well-intentioned in some ways - they were about having a cleaner, more sober, more healthy society, with less poverty and more prosperity, and less addiction. But the end result is creating an underground drug/alcohol trade, giving rise to organized crime and gangs, and having people now consume less safe homebrewed versions of alcohol and drugs.
I think most if not all well-intentioned consequentialist thinking goes to similar places. There were will always be seductively alluring "Works in theory/destroys the world" type things (separate but equal segregation, communism, prohibition, price controls) - and many of those are in violation of basic deontological ethics of giving people choice, letting them live their lives, and so on. I think the vast majority of drastically bad ideas can be avoided with straightforward, rule based live and let live type ethics, which is what I personally favor after searching around.
"Ends justify the means" has historically always led to bad places - and I think it always will. "Ends justify the means" works in theory, but has consistently historically failed in the real world.
Edit: Just read the Less Wrong article - quite good and I more or less agree with Eliezer there.