3 ms·
> People disagree about their higher moral principles. Resolving to absoluteness requires violent resolution. And what do you think the implication of that is?
by 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 agoThis 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.