> 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 wel

> 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.