3 ms·
> that's because businesses act unethically -- ie, for private profit over public good Are you suggesting it is morally wrong to earn a profit if it would bett
by sa46 7y ago
> that's because businesses act unethically -- ie, for private profit over public good
Are you suggesting it is morally wrong to earn a profit if it would better serve the public good? How and more importantly who defines public good? A major theme from The Wealth of Nations refutes your point by arguing that the greatest economic benefit occurs when people act in their own self-interest:
> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
It sounds like you're arguing for a socialism model where a central authority decides how to use capital.
- rhn_mk1 7y agoI lok at the meaning of that assertion on terms of game theory. Producing software is not a zero-sum game. If you model it as something like the prisoner's dilemma between the developer and the public, then proprietary software makers are the defectors: they gain a lot, and the public gains a little. Free software makers are the cooperators: they gain less, but the public gains a lot, and more is gained in total than in the first case. The public good under that definition is rather clear: the total advantage (not necessary capital) that something provides to the entirety of society. I can see how choosing to act in a less-good way than another obvious way can be interpreted as unethical.
- door5 7y ago>It sounds like you're arguing for a socialism model where a central authority decides how to use capital. You got it. A democratically controlled central authority representing the interests of working people instead of capital, yes.