but it turns out that what I really mean is basically "I like consequentialism, not deontology." (I've read about one whole paragraph of each of those articles.)
But argh! Life is so much harder when you look at everything as good or bad!
(skippable elaboration: external morality is just a heuristic, right? it's like when a kid says "why shouldn't you shoplift a candy bar?", you could say
- "well, then the store owner is out $1, and then it makes it harder for him to keep the store in business, and he might have to fire his workers, then they're out of jobs so they can't buy things, so other stores go out of business; it's got negative economic effects" or
- "if I steal, other people think it might be okay to steal, and store owners will get suspicious, and this creates a world of lies which I don't want to live in" and then explain the tragedy of the commons or
- "I might get caught and the chance of me getting caught times the badness of getting caught is more than $1", and explain how expected value works or
- "stealing is wrong."
In the adult case, it's even worse, because you don't even know the effects. In either case, appeal to external morality is the quickest way to figure out "should I do X or Y?". It's often a necessary hack, but it's still a hack. And when you forget that it's just a hack, you start thinking "he loaded the dishwasher WRONG" or "she said the WRONG thing" and when people wrong you that really hurts! But you're not really wronged in any grand true way, and because it's so minor, it's better to think about it as if you weren't even wronged.)
Urgh! Deontologists stress me out! Then I am reminded of a bit in "The Size of the World" by Jeff Greenwald in which his friend Sally comes to a great realization that, though she tries to be accepting of everything, she doesn't accept it when others don't accept things. It's played for a bit of laughs in the book, but it's a lesson I'd do well to learn.