|
|
|
|
|
|
by TreeRingCounter
1267 days ago
|
|
|
Why would I want to talk to someone about an issue I couldn't possibly expect them to have a rational opinion on? > One of the frustrating aspects of arguments like this Is people insisting on making a society-scale issue into a personal, emotional issue? > is that proponents of "social efficiency" aren't personally impacted their proposed policies Oh. Well funny enough, I actually do have a couple serious dietary intolerances - but I don't insist on externalizing my costs onto others against their will. It may be alien to you, but in fact I am perfectly capable of considering policy decisions that are bad for me but good for society. Some people can't do it, I guess. |
|
|
I apologise for believing that social policy should be empathetic towards the people it has the greatest impact on. I also apologise for believing that those who believe that the individual needs and right should be considered in addition to what’s “social efficient”.
Clearly a purely utilitarian approach to social policy should be adopted, individuals that reduce “social efficiency” should be removed or ignored. Those who object are turning social policy into an emotional issue, when clearly all social policy should be considered on purely economic and rational basis.
> Oh. Well funny enough, I actually do have a couple serious dietary intolerances - but I don't insist on externalizing my costs onto others against their will.
Thats nice. I’m sure you apply the same reasoning to every aspect of your life, and ensure that you never externalise any cost to society at large.
> It may be alien to you, but in fact I am perfectly capable of considering policy decisions that are bad for me but good for society. Some people can't do it, I guess.
Then I would say your arguments for why this policy is bad, are poorly constructed and lacking any real substance. It’s trivial to justify almost any policy based on “greater good” arguments, that doesn’t make them good policies.