Manheim: narrow exceptions don't negate deontological constraints
davidmanheim · x · 2026-11-15
Responding to the charge that he effectively claims deontological constraints dissolve when stakes are high, David Manheim argues he only holds that no constraint applies in narrow cases — agreeing self-defense is justifiable doesn't mean rejecting deontological prohibitions on violence. He adds the opposing argument is an appeal-to-consequences fallacy: advocating rule-breaking even when it wouldn't actually help, akin to claiming that if one truly believed AI was risky, one should turn violent — while ignoring that it wouldn't help.
More from AGI Musings
- Manheim: saying consequences justify breaking NDAs is an appeal-to-consequences fallacy — davidmanheim · 2026-11-15
- Open models aren't inherently safer—just 4-7 months behind closed ones, argues new post — BlackHC · 2026-11-15
- Manheim: honoring commitments is deontological — and consequentialists benefit too — davidmanheim · 2026-11-15
- Guidelight AI catalogs ten misaligned AI behaviors signaling loss-of-control risk — AccBalanced · 2026-11-15
- Reddit debate: machines taking jobs was always the goal — so why do we treat it as apocalypse? — Foreign-Night-3322 · 2026-11-15
- Ruxandra Teslo: making suffering-avoidance the ultimate goal breeds utility-monster outcomes — shae_mcl · 2026-11-15