3 ms·
Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it. (As opposed to man who says it should not be done.) The "should" question boils down to, "Ho
by kbutler 11y ago
Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it. (As opposed to man who says it should not be done.)
The "should" question boils down to, "How much harm can we morally inflict on some individual(s) in order to benefit others?"
Torture is the extreme end of the "harm" spectrum, but when we vote in favor of government benefits or taxes, we vote to harm some in order to benefit others.
Individuals and societies differ in how much harm is allowable and in how much benefit justifies a given amount or type of harm.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Torture is the extreme end of the "harm" spectrum, but when we vote in favor of government benefits or taxes Or exclusive monopolies in the form of "property rights", for that matter. A big part of the some moral theories of benefits and taxation is that they should be aligned, so far as possible, to, taken into consideration with property rights, be a mitigator of the harms due to property rights, while reducing the benefits of those who benefit the most from those rights (without making a net harm for any, and leaving the whole system as net gain for everyone, because its not zero sum.)