4 ms·

It seems that the principle in question, if applied, would result in the redistribution of all wealth until everyone was equal. Wouldn't it? However, this can'

by todd8 6y ago

It seems that the principle in question, if applied, would result in the redistribution of all wealth until everyone was equal. Wouldn't it? However, this can't be all because Joe (not a real person) might go and gamble away all of this sudden windfall. Meanwhile Jane (not a real person) might also go and gamble and win, doubling her net-worth. Is it now time to redistribute again? Furthermore, once you realize how this works, doesn't this change people's behavior in a negative way. Why bother working when you end up with the working people's savings anyway. Many will likely say, "Oh, but your argument is silly, that's clearly not how the principle will be applied." If that is so, just describe how it should be applied? Is the goal equal happiness or is it equal wealth for everyone? Some won't be happy without spending lots of money extravagantly, others will be happy with a simple "safety net". Again, how are we to think about this once we have decided that it is up to us to determine what to do with someone else's money for the sake of a gain to the many. It seems to me that this ethical principle is far short of being useful in deciding how much to take from other people.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
You're kind of missing my point. The goal is to make good decisions with low risk potential that help a lot of people. Say the local homeless shelter can't make rent, and it's February, 3ft of snow, 0F overnight. In this specific set of circumstances I would argue it is ethically necessary to tax the wealthiest of the city fairly on a proportional basis to stop these people from dying due to exposure. Or even to commandeer buildings and resources, so long as the suffering parties are not unduly burdened, e.g. there are 10 millionaires and a 10 millionaire. The 10 pay 50%, the one pays 50%. If they have to sell a plane, camp, boat or painting so be it. That's just the cost of being a good neighbor. If people don't want to do these things then they shouldn't be wealthy, or maybe work to actively prevent cities from decaying to the point where people protest outside their house with a prop guillotine. Another example, if we nationalize the health care system and a million people lose their jobs but 100 million benefit from cheaper care that isn't profit motivated then it is also ethically necessary. This is based upon made up numbers and should not be taken as actual argument for measures that should be taken. Smarter people than I make those arguments, talk to them. I'm only trying to explain my take on the ethics of hurting few to help many. That being said killing someone to rob them is still morally reprehensible, as would be forcing a billionaire into the streets to turn all their houses into homeless shelters. Though there is a good discussion to be had about ethical ramifications of living in a mansion with armed guards and private jets when their staff collect benefits. In that case I think it's clear something must be done. What is not easy to decide, and is a severe moral failing of the people that comprise local, state and federal governments. I typed this on my phone, if it's unclear or has errors I'm sorry and I will be happy to clarify myself positions or correct any errors.

by todd8 6y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

You're kind of missing my point. The goal is to make good decisions with low risk potential that help a lot of people. Say the local homeless shelter can't make rent, and it's February, 3ft of snow, 0F overnight. In this specific set of circumstances I would argue it is ethically necessary to tax the wealthiest of the city fairly on a proportional basis to stop these people from dying due to exposure. Or even to commandeer buildings and resources, so long as the suffering parties are not unduly burdened, e.g. there are 10 millionaires and a 10 millionaire. The 10 pay 50%, the one pays 50%. If they have to sell a plane, camp, boat or painting so be it. That's just the cost of being a good neighbor. If people don't want to do these things then they shouldn't be wealthy, or maybe work to actively prevent cities from decaying to the point where people protest outside their house with a prop guillotine. Another example, if we nationalize the health care system and a million people lose their jobs but 100 million benefit from cheaper care that isn't profit motivated then it is also ethically necessary. This is based upon made up numbers and should not be taken as actual argument for measures that should be taken. Smarter people than I make those arguments, talk to them. I'm only trying to explain my take on the ethics of hurting few to help many. That being said killing someone to rob them is still morally reprehensible, as would be forcing a billionaire into the streets to turn all their houses into homeless shelters. Though there is a good discussion to be had about ethical ramifications of living in a mansion with armed guards and private jets when their staff collect benefits. In that case I think it's clear something must be done. What is not easy to decide, and is a severe moral failing of the people that comprise local, state and federal governments. I typed this on my phone, if it's unclear or has errors I'm sorry and I will be happy to clarify myself positions or correct any errors.