Put like that, I agree - I had a different meaning of "rule-consequentialist" in mind than you, apparently. (I'm not too familiar with the vocabulary of such discussions, sorry!) Thanks for clarifying.
Don't worry, like any academic field philosophy is filled with jargon, but knowing the jargon doesn't make you any smarter and not knowing doesn't make you any dumber.
Both you and Eliezer made good arguments and points, they just happened to already have a name in the philosophical jargon.
If you're interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at plato.stanford.edu is the greatest repository of philosophical knowledge on the Internet.
Comments
Put like that, I agree - I had a different meaning of "rule-consequentialist" in mind than you, apparently. (I'm not too familiar with the vocabulary of such discussions, sorry!) Thanks for clarifying.
Don't worry, like any academic field philosophy is filled with jargon, but knowing the jargon doesn't make you any smarter and not knowing doesn't make you any dumber.
Both you and Eliezer made good arguments and points, they just happened to already have a name in the philosophical jargon.
If you're interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at plato.stanford.edu is the greatest repository of philosophical knowledge on the Internet.
They have an article about rule-consequentialism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/