3 ms·
Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take car
by Vinnl 8y ago
Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.
- zeroname 8y ago> Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. It is moral to allocate resources more efficiently, as it increases well-being and reduces waste. > If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. Not at all. A society which allocates resources more efficiently has more resources available to deal with such problems. It is also in the self-interest of every individual to be taken care of, should they become disabled. The (im)morality of using taxation to this end (as opposed to voluntary charity and private insurance) is a separate debate altogether. > I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework. They're already reconciled.