> I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. But which "us"? That's my point. You aren't talking to all of society (assuming "us"

> I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. But which "us"? That's my point. You aren't talking to all of society (assuming "us" was all of society), so you using it like that doesn't even theoretically do this. > Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes. This isn't the same as "society". My point is that the definition of "society" changes dramatically based on where you live and what you consume. It's like a giant straw man. > So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous? It's hard to make sense through the purple prose, but maybe I can pick something out. You're not calling out greed; you're calling an entire society greedy. That's the problem. All the rest of what you said here doesn't seem relevant.