I think we can have both.

I think I can save your mother AND be a society of law and order, in which stealing is illegal.

...taxes?

If we do not want a sorites paradox, we have to stick to principles that do not depend on the judgement of degree. Any judgement of degree always results in grey zones, which is why I am a free speech absolutist.

If I steal from the billionaire, I should be punished.

BUT I should only be punished to the degree of harm I cause.

I might have acted immorally in stealing, but the state can compel me, according to absolutist laws, to restore the damage I have done.

If I stole $100 to save my mother, the state can force me to pay it back.

I will then commit the crime, knowing how much the life of my mother is worth, and accept the punishment.

But the harm to the billionaire should not be ignored simply due to its degree of harm.

It is no less an immorality and should therefor be balanced by the state.

so, to sidestep the thought experiment a bit: let's build a government that manages to sell saving the starving mother to billionaires in a way that makes them want to invest that money, too. A bit like some places in my country accept tax deals with rich people...

Or rather, some places got rather "famous" for doing so in recent decades 😃

To give any intelligent answer to that I'd have to return to issues of principle.

I should not be forced to be the caretaker of people I owe nothing to, but as soon as I have a debt, there is a contract, which the state should enforce.

If a group of people are all in agreement that they assist each other in times of need, we do have voluntary systems that do not require coercion.

Those systems, for example, are implemented in insurance.

Maybe that's why there are so many insurance companies around here. I must say, though, I really like living in a place where people aren't pushed too far beyond what they can bear. You're not guaranteed to win, but if you lose, there are enough resources so you can get your act together.

Yes, but our ability to consistently reproduce these conditions depends on the degree of our understanding of the underlying principles.

Which is, as far as I understand it, not even entirely untrue for the US, so maybe my views aren't free of some cliche, either.

Most people who approach this topic from a moral view cannot articulate clear principles that can be consistently applied.

For example, if I can prevent the starvation of a person through some of what I have, should I be compelled to do so? How far? Within your state? Within the next country? All the way in Africa?

Shouldn't all my excess wealth be taken by that logic and distributed among all starving people?

That is true, but I think what I can take away from this discussion is a better understanding of what it exactly is that I don't know in this regard.

Good. And I'm not trying to corner you and I am trying to be as receptive to learning.

> Shouldn't all my excess wealth be taken by that logic and distributed among all starving people?

Technically, I guess so. But yeah, I was against the 1:12 ratio initiative, as it was called here.

One central question that always crops up in questions of the role of state and responsibility to your fellow humans is this:

Is it moral to compel someone to be moral?

no

Isn't that just a reformulation of your earlier paradox?

That one was one of degree.

I think a clear answer to that is wrong.

it's like forcing someone to be charitable, it defeats the purpose of charity

As long as you formulate a position on an assessment of degree, you will have to contend with grey zones.

A principle that does not depend on degree has no grey zones.

shouldn't. ideally. there is geometric optimization, I guess.

Similar issues crop up in optimization problems, yes.

But, I am not sure if we are stretching the analogy beyond what is useful.

I like how peterson tells the story about the soviet famine.

I think he approached it from a perspective of incentives.

exactly, and how they piled up in the wrong place with terrible "if you die in Canada you die in real life" consequences.

That sounds pretty funny.

I don't remember that part.

a thing that should be obvious, but when it isn't you'll scratch your head how it possibly couldn't be obvous. https://xkcd.com/180/