3 ms·

You are exactly right, especially with the example of the famine. Maybe in some cases moderate amounts of greed and selfishness can lead to the common good (tho

by tivert 2y ago

You are exactly right, especially with the example of the famine. Maybe in some cases moderate amounts of greed and selfishness can lead to the common good (though the market), but higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflict. Unfortunately a lot of people miss that, especially with the astounding amounts of free market propaganda out there, hocking incomplete models and nonsense like defining good as whatever the market does. If you find yourself in a famine with a warehouse of food, and your thought is "how can I exploit this situation for maximum profit" you are doing it wrong.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflic People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution.
- tivert 2y ago
  > People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution. And what do you think the implication of that is? For example, in the GGP's scenario about the warehouse of food in a famine? That point is often used as part of a non sequitur excuse to behave badly (e.g. people don't agree on everything, therefore lets have a free for all ruled by only the market).
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    This sort of extreme argument is silly. Yes in that instance you need bureaucrats who parcel out what's there. But almost all the time (except in countries where governed by "social good" politics, where millions have starved to death) you aren't in a life or death situation and can just proceed normally, producing what people want to consume, or being further back in the supply chain and producing what businesses want to consume, is by far the best approach. Let people decide what they want to do and what they want to buy, and leave them alone as much as possible to achieve that.

by tivert 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> higher moral principles must always take priority with there's a conflic People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution.

tivert 2y ago
> People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution. And what do you think the implication of that is? For example, in the GGP's scenario about the warehouse of food in a famine? That point is often used as part of a non sequitur excuse to behave badly (e.g. people don't agree on everything, therefore lets have a free for all ruled by only the market).
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  This sort of extreme argument is silly. Yes in that instance you need bureaucrats who parcel out what's there. But almost all the time (except in countries where governed by "social good" politics, where millions have starved to death) you aren't in a life or death situation and can just proceed normally, producing what people want to consume, or being further back in the supply chain and producing what businesses want to consume, is by far the best approach. Let people decide what they want to do and what they want to buy, and leave them alone as much as possible to achieve that.