undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBSEdlMMldESB2y ago0 comments

no, you gotta be much more deep in your reasoning this "high" up

philosophically, at this height, the principle of "justice" is to not so simple... what does it even mean "to be just"? may as well say "be good" but the point is that the issue is good for whom?

the concept is "Empire"... USA government is the empire? aside question: can there ever exist multiple "empires"? monotheistic~ally speaking?

uff... My English prose is answering its own questions... I am no longer deeply disturbed by this phenomenon... but it's not something scientifically real so it still shakes me.

0 comments

Jeff_Brown2y ago

Philosophers seem to delight in the idea that the common good is hard to define. I'm an economist. I don't see much wiggle room. The wiggle room that exists is:

(1) How much do you care about whom? In particular, do you care equally about everyone, or are you a jerk?

(2) How do you weight the relative value of things like money, health, longevity, entertainment?

(3) At what rate does the marginal utility of such things diminish?

Okay maybe that's a lot of wiggle room. Still, under any reasonable set of weights, making millions of people sick is not worth the money 3M made.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse