Desiring to live and protect all children is the default attitude according to both history and most moral codes.
GE Morton wrote:
If the prevailing moral code is not universally agreed upon at least by members of the participating society it's not sound and may be undergoing a paradigm shift.But while a sound moral theory must apply universally, it need not be universally agreed upon.
In some individual cases yes, but by "worse effects" I mean suffering, and also less efficient productivity.By "worse effects," do you mean the envy reaction? John Stuart Mill called envy " . . . that most anti-social and odious of all passions . . .".That the alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.
I am not in a position to threaten anyone. If I were a dictator I'd institute democracy.Is your argument, "If we don't reduce inequality murder and mayhem will ensue"? That argument is a version of "might makes right." A threat --- "your money or your life" --- is not a moral argument.
Alfie's duty may actually be encoded in myth and oral tradition, or even in written law. I think it is actually the law in my own country that I have a legal duty to stop and help someone who is in danger or who has had an accident, whenever possible without increasing general danger or danger to any individual concerned. If Bruno is hungry and there is roast antelope to spare then it's Alfie's duty and pleasure to share it with Bruno even if Bruno is one of his friend's enemies.Of course people have needs (which vary from person to person, as mentioned above). But the questions were whether Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or whether Alfie may be forced to perform that alleged duty.
It's true the bigger the society the more difficult it is to legislate based on democracy. There is a dual way to base legislation on. 1. The rather bleak principle of enlightened reciprocity 2. the arts which are international, intertribal, and interpersonal. I refer especially to narrative stories and also to ritual performances.Truth is not truth unless it's universally true and the best works of art although their forms may be ethnic or typical of their times are universally true in their imports.As for the need for community, yes, humans are social animals, and most of them desire relationships with others. But the relevant community there is one's circle of family, friends, other associates with whom one maintains personal relationships. Society at large is not necessary to meet that "need."
How would you stand vis a vis the climate emergency and shared natural resources such as air and water, and pathogenic infections? There are identifiable individuals who 'steal' those for their own use thereby making the resources unavailable in perpetuity for others.Call this 'theft'or some other term of disapproval but I defy you to legitimate this stupid and selfish behaviour.That is true. We've covered that. That is true of anything anyone consumes. But unless the thing consumed belonged to someone else, taking and consuming it is not theft. So describing it is an attempt to portray it as immoral. But deeming it immoral leads to the reductio ad absurdum mentioned earlier.The status quo is there is such a thing as personal property. The meaning of "all property is theft" is twofold. 1.If Alfie consumes one particular thing Bruno has no opportunity to get it for himself.Fact.
Please see above.Again, you're relying either on an assumption that Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or that his needs give rise to property rights. The first requires a moral argument, and the second is historically false (historically, property rights arise from first possession, and have nothing to do with needs).
Are you arguing that all private property must be collectivized because 3% of its value is derived from natural resources? Also, there seems to be an underlying presumption there that natural resources are all public property, that "the public" is their owner. What is the basis for that belief? (You're not alone with that presumption, of course, which I've elsewhere described as "Locke's error").
Again, please see above. There is now an ecological imperative that over rides all other moral and practical demands.
I can't give minute rules and regulations. The differences are so enormous and obvious it's easy to see how to make some inroads into reducing them.That doesn't answer the question of, What is each person's "fair share" of those products and services?
I accept 'majority rule' instead of my word 'consensus'.Majority rule and consensus are two different things. Majority rule is a workable, and morally defensible, method of reaching a decision where there are multiple decision-makers, all of whom have an equal right to make the decision. E.g., if Alfie, Bruno, and Chauncey have equal shares in factory, then they may decide by majority vote whether to manufacture widgets or twinkets. But non-owners do not have an equal right to a vote in that decision. They have no right to a vote at all.
People who for whatever reason have rights to shares in profits do have a duty to outsiders not to infringe outsiders' rights by e.g poisoning water and air, causing ground tremors, destroying natural resources, causing human exploitation, and failing to clean up after the industry.