In my view, that would be better than the current system. Even if it’s not 100% perfect.

My goal is to minimise that inequality as much as possible.

Even if I don’t achieve 100% equality, it doesn’t matter. As long as we’re closer to it, that’s fine.

The way I see it, the solution to this problem lies in an anti-democratic approach

Democracy must be tempered, not absolute

Then the problem is, how do people get elected to govern themselves?

Raffle?

For example, the solution of the wolves and the sheep lies in letting the sheep have guns so if they lose the vote they can kill the wolves

Which means the wolves won't vote to eat the sheep

The problem is, how do you decide who governs who?

That's an eternal struggle, governance is inevitable (as demonstrated by history)

Injustice, inequality, imbalance, and suffering as a result, it's part of life

But surely we can try minimise those injustices, inequality, imbalance and suffering 😉

For me it's about mitigating the cost on a moral individualistic level, not on a collective level

Well

What's the difference between two people dying or one person dying?

The utilitarian answer is: it's twice the cost because two is twice than one
My answer: no difference

Some people misunderstand what I mean by this

So let me explain

Please do

We can either place value on life, or we don't. If we place value on life, we can do this either by numbers of lives, or by the simple distinction between life and death.

Ergo we can say death is terrible just because it's death, or we can say death is more or less terrible depending on how many people die.

Fuck, I want to continue this, but I need to head out..

I only make a distinction between life and death, not between numbers of dead people.

Every single death is bad. More dead people are not more bad, they're just equally bad. It doesn't add up, it stays level.

so killing 1 baby is equal to killing a hundred?🤔

That’s what I was just typing

Yes, in my opinion it's the same. If you kill one, you could just as well kill a hundred, so you should be tried the same either way.

bruh

thats... an intresting way of looking at things

If that one death was violent and painful, would it be any different from the 100 deaths which may have been peaceful in their sleep?

If you deserve death for killing 100 babies, then you also deserve death for killing one.
If you don't deserve death for killing one baby, then you also don't deserve death for killing 100.

Makes communist death stats irrelevant

There's a difference between a murderer and a serial killer...

I know there's a difference, and I've thought about that

But to me it's purely numerical

A utilitarian sees added moral value in numbers, I don't

If you kill one person that's life, if you kill hundreds that's a death sentence

In this instance it might just depend on the person. I mean to you or me, we'd see the baby's death as a bad thing. To the parent, it's so much more devastating

I think if you murder 100 people, and you deserve death for that, then you should also deserve that for only murdering 1 person.

No I don't believe in death for killing one person as that's an eye for an eye territory which is morally questionable