"that, we think, is the heart of the matter:why Cliff?why is any/(every?) life more valuable than *my* property?"Assuming you are playing devil's advocate, you have isolated the reason why Lisa's first precept might make sense, but precepts number 2 and 3 will often contradict, or abrogate number 1.If you make property, or propery ownership a fundamental precept, (as opposed to a possible social good that falls somewhere below number 1, (the sanctity of the individual)), you get absurd results, such as choosing to let people starve literally to death if they cannot produce "something of value" in return for their use of resources. I don't think you can ever logically tie proposition number 1 into numbers 2 and 3 in a consistent and rational way.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M