Nuke Africa! (Fun with Rawlsian logic)

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we aren't bound by realism, then the correct answer is to kill everyone but a man and women, since they have everything in the world, and it's the only option, it's 100% effective right?

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

Killing all but two will leave those two with a substantially poorer quality of life. Try to imagine a world with no one else in it. There would be no one to produce any goods or services. You couldn't see a doctor, go to a movie, get any new products...not to mention the lack of companionship.

Any person in a capitalistic economy who provides for himself a good living must, by definition, do so through trade. He must provide something that society values more than what he takes in return. Any such individual is a net gain for society and the economy. Killing such a person would generate a lack of productivity, and thus hurt everyone else.

The case where this is not true is where someone consumes more than he produces. In a capitalistic economy this cannot happen because such individuals will either be incentivized to produce more and consume less, or they will be naturally selected against. When individuals are kept alive by subsidies, as is the case with many of the world's poor, they constitute a drain on social resources and society is better off without them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy there Tiger, yes of course with no one to do anything else for you you'd be left in a mud hut with farming to survive. End 'o story. What I meant was that you should kill everyone after those people needed to run power, water, etc and make cars, food, whatever. I'd bet any capital city (or even a suburban area thereof) would about make this cut.

Jesus we have alot of nuking to do.

Cody

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So essentially, the poor / less fit should die, including the handicap etc etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

If John Rawls' thinking was consistent, I think he'd agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really should read DVaut's post. His explanation is exactly how I read Rawls, and it makes your thread kind of silly.