3 ms·
Your argument depends on a flawed and deterministic outlook of human improvement. Your premise that there is a mandate of responsibility to "better" other human
by Dracophoenix 5y ago
Your argument depends on a flawed and deterministic outlook of human improvement. Your premise that there is a mandate of responsibility to "better" other human beings is the justification of the philosopher-king dictatorship. It eerily resembles the argument made by Soviet Russia for push towards homo sovieticus. There is no such thing an inherent responsibility towards bettering others. Responsibilities are instruments, not ends in and of themselves. If wanting to "ascend" to being a greater individual is the choice of said of the individual, he should every right to, crab bucket be dammed.
- derbOac 5y agoI think logically if you accept the premise that some can be improved, then you have to answer the question of why not others. It's a moral opportunity cost, and equivalent to withholding food or water. The costs compound to society at large though if withholding improvement affects others. It's a moral question that has nothing to do with economic systems.