Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Yes, you are. Maybe point two will help see why. 2. You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Real world definitions will inherently use a value hierarchy. This is where the conflation comes in. 3. Mostly agree, which is why I said real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. The vast majority of Americans have a fairly s…
> You can't define anything beyond a platitude without some sort of values prioritization. Yes, you can. In fact, you can't have a value prioritization unless you can first define the things you are prioritizing, so this is precisely backwards. And even if you were right, it wouldn't support—or even have any bearing on—your claim about confusing “values with real world policy execution”. > Bob's happiness may conflic…
2. This is theoretically possible but not at all how most people in the real world function. Not a material impact here. If you believe many people’s happiness depends on many others unhappiness that is classic zero sum thinking.
3. Cool, so we weren’t talking about the same thing, hence the disagreement.