[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>And the ideology you are promoting would have the disabled murdered for being unproductive. And indeed, it already has.

Don't put words into my mouth. I don't promote punishing people for not being contributing members of society I promote not rewarding them.

Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity. The world needs more intelligent people and society should work to reward positive traits.

[aninhumer]

>I don't promote punishing people for not being contributing members of society I promote not rewarding them.

Punishment and reward are relative in a connected economy. If you think that "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are proposing their murder via starvation.

>Your ideology promotes punishing success and rewarding idleness and stupidity.

My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.

It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.

But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.

[aslkfjhskjfhadk]

>Punishment and reward are relative in a connected economy. If you think that "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are proposing their murder via starvation.

Look I'm not arguing against your imagined dystopia and I'm not a radical like you are. People in society are charitable and do provide basic needs for those that can't earn enough to feed themselves.

>My moral premise is the society should strive for the creation of the greatest utility for humanity. Withholding utility from some group humans, for whatever reason, directly harms that goal.

Your statement is factually incorrect. If we are to say that utility as you say is money then intelligent people are better at allocating resources than intelligent people. An intelligent person that is a good investor will invest in technology that they can leverage to create more.

If an intelligent person is given a significant amount of money because of their contributions to society, and then this person uses that money to create a new technology, utility has already exceeded the case where the less intelligent person and the more intelligent person are given the same amount of money.

>It can be argued that an unequal allocation of resources to individuals creates more overall utility by creating incentives, and I'm receptive to that argument, although I don't agree with it.

Ignoring rewards unequal allocation of resources gives those that can make better use of resources more.

>But arguing that the less productive individuals deserve less means your moral premise is no longer about creating the greatest utility, it's about creating utility for those you deem worthy.

It's not about who "I" deem worthy. I don't promote a central authority ran by me that ranks people and rewards people based on their worth. I promote allowing people to use the resources they have access to as they see fit and if the vast majority of society believes it's correct to give all their money to one person due to that person's contribution to society I believe we shouldn't interfere in that process.

[aninhumer]

> I don't promote a central authority ran by me that ranks people and rewards people based on their worth.

I'm not talking about the system. I'm talking about your morality. If you say "A stupid person that contributes nothing deserves nothing." then you are making a moral statement that deems that person less worthy.

My premise is that all people are equally worthy of a good life. If distributing resources unequally helps everyone to have better lives through greater productivity then that is a justified utilitarian decision. But calling that pragmatic decision morality, and saying that people are "worth" more or less as a result, is what I object to.

And to address your points about "wife beaters", since you seem to think they are more obviously "less worthy" than others: No, I still think they are equally worthy of living good lives. They should be prevented from harming people, and if that requires a worse quality of life (i.e. as a result of imprisonment) then that is justified. But punishment for punishment's sake is just turning harm into even more harm.