51–53 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having children just underscored the importance of looking out for everyone to me. The better everyone is doing, the safer the world is for my kids.
Sure, but the sentiment changed from "we can all fight this together" to "we can all fight this together AFTER I've secured my child".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on your moral philosophy. To give an extreme, hedonistic utilitarianism says it is. I'm not that extreme, but there are limits to what I'll spend money on, in light of the opportunity cost of helping others. Sending my kid to college for the equivalent of providing full cost-of-living to a thousand people for 200 days? Gladly. Buy a car for the same amount? No matter my income, I wouldn't do it. It's a fri…
I don't see how picking a philosophy then claiming the outcome is rational, while picking a different philosophy will lead to a claim that the outcome is irrational is anything more than just quibbling over inconsistent semantics.
- The greatest good for the greatest number, where good is defined by happiness
... by self-growth
... by adherence to a code of behavior
- Loyalty to family and country
- Improve humanity by euthanizing inferior individuals
- Save the environment from humanity
- Subjugate the environment for humanity
... and so on. Those have no logic behind them. They're just values. They're arbitrary.
Logic comes in after that, in what you do from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would continue discussing this with you, but if you object to people buying a bag of chips, I can draw a relatively easy conclusion to your overall opinion on the social safety net and probably tax policy. It's not worth my time.
That would be your assumption due to your own political bias. That reflects on you, not me. Like I legitimately just want the system to be more efficient lol. It must be hard for you to talk to people?