“In general the law is not necessarily well-aligned with doing the most good”
I agree with this, but I think deontological principles like “don’t ask people who you have power over to break the law” are good and should be followed, even when in specific situations, this might be misaligned with the act which generates the greatest utility in the short term.
There’s of interesting work inside and outside EA which I would recommend, on the relationship between consequentialism and deontology (including stuff about naive consequentialism, rule utilitarianism, etc).
I agree with this, but I think deontological principles like “don’t ask people who you have power over to break the law” are good and should be followed, even when in specific situations, this might be misaligned with the act which generates the greatest utility in the short term.
It’s good to think carefully before violating this kind of deontological principle. But I have a hard time endorsing your statement in general.
It seems to me that in the case of e.g. an unjust law, the principle you endorse is fundamentally about reducing expected harm to your employee. If the expected harm to your employee is small relative to the harm averted for some other party, and your employee is willing to take on the risk, I don’t see a good case for sticking with the principle.
Thought experiment: Suppose you’re a wealthy abolitionist living in the northern US prior to the Civil War. You have an abolitionist friend in town who’s currently working as a clerk. They want to help fugitive slaves, and the punishment for doing so happens to be relatively light. Is it acceptable to hire them to help fugitive slaves?
With regard to Linch’s comment in this thread—let’s say that almost everyone in your state thinks helping fugitive slaves is wrong. According to them, it violates sacred property rights and the US Constitution.
An abolitionist movement which condemns you for hiring your friend strikes me as pathologically risk-averse, in a way that will cause slavery to end very slowly or not at all.
I tend to see deontological principles as opportunities to think carefully about what you are doing rather than hard rules, due to examples like the above. I am very interested to see someone make the opposing case. [Edit: An exception would be rule violations that seem suspiciously self-serving. Because it’s so hard to root out self-serving thoughts & behavior in oneself, I think a better approach here might be: Identify some rules that seem good for a 3rd party you don’t especially trust, then follow those rules yourself. My thinking is still developing on this.]
“In general the law is not necessarily well-aligned with doing the most good”
I agree with this, but I think deontological principles like “don’t ask people who you have power over to break the law” are good and should be followed, even when in specific situations, this might be misaligned with the act which generates the greatest utility in the short term.
There’s of interesting work inside and outside EA which I would recommend, on the relationship between consequentialism and deontology (including stuff about naive consequentialism, rule utilitarianism, etc).
It’s good to think carefully before violating this kind of deontological principle. But I have a hard time endorsing your statement in general.
It seems to me that in the case of e.g. an unjust law, the principle you endorse is fundamentally about reducing expected harm to your employee. If the expected harm to your employee is small relative to the harm averted for some other party, and your employee is willing to take on the risk, I don’t see a good case for sticking with the principle.
Thought experiment: Suppose you’re a wealthy abolitionist living in the northern US prior to the Civil War. You have an abolitionist friend in town who’s currently working as a clerk. They want to help fugitive slaves, and the punishment for doing so happens to be relatively light. Is it acceptable to hire them to help fugitive slaves?
With regard to Linch’s comment in this thread—let’s say that almost everyone in your state thinks helping fugitive slaves is wrong. According to them, it violates sacred property rights and the US Constitution.
An abolitionist movement which condemns you for hiring your friend strikes me as pathologically risk-averse, in a way that will cause slavery to end very slowly or not at all.
I tend to see deontological principles as opportunities to think carefully about what you are doing rather than hard rules, due to examples like the above. I am very interested to see someone make the opposing case. [Edit: An exception would be rule violations that seem suspiciously self-serving. Because it’s so hard to root out self-serving thoughts & behavior in oneself, I think a better approach here might be: Identify some rules that seem good for a 3rd party you don’t especially trust, then follow those rules yourself. My thinking is still developing on this.]