geo, that’s a pretty standard method for a lot of moral/political philosophers, but of course it only gets you so far. Sometimes it works better in the resverse direction, to demonstrate that principles that sound reasonable and compelling lead to bizarre moral judgments no one would accept. That doesn’t finish the job of refuting that view, of course, but it can help stimulate thought on what might be wrong with the proposed principle after all.

‘Though logic-choppers rule the town,
And every man and maid and boy
Has marked a distant object down,
An aimless joy is a pure joy,’
Or so did Tom O’Roughley say
That saw the surges running by.
‘And wisdom is a butterfly
And not a gloomy bird of prey.

‘If little planned is little sinned
But little need the grave distress.
What’s dying but a second wind?
How but in zig-zag wantonness
Could trumpeter Michael be so brave?’
Or something of that sort he said,
‘And if my dearest friend were dead
I’d dance a measure on his grave.’

W.B Yeats

And no, plenty of people would say that it’s unjust to take from (coerce) an investment bank and give to children, that’s the whole point.

What’s striking here is that the two groups holding these diametrically opposite views on ‘justice’ (must take a little from the bank – mustn’t take anything from the bank) are of the same general persuasion – liberals. Like I said before: minor doctrinal disagreements, yet their understandings of ‘justice’ are dramatically different. And now think about liberals vs. soc1al1sts (who would simply expropriate the bank) or nationalists (who don’t care about any children outside their country/race/ethnicity), or countless combinations of various degrees of these main doctrines.

And no, plenty of people would say that it’s unjust to take from (coerce) an investment bank and give to children, that’s the whole point.

What’s striking here is that the two groups holding these diametrically opposite views on ‘justice’ (must take a little from the bank – mustn’t take anything from the bank) are of the same general persuasion – liberals. Like I said before: minor doctrinal disagreements, yet their understandings of ‘justice’ are dramatically different. And now think about liberals vs. socialists (who would simply expropriate the bank) or nationalists (who don’t care about any children outside their country/race/ethnicity), or countless combinations of various degrees of these main doctrines.

Well, would it be unjust to let your child die for lack of a tiny expenditure if you had pots of money? Of course. Your sister’s child? Your neighbor’s child? A child across town? Across the country? Across the world? In each case, why? I know there are lots more steps to the rich world’s failure to provide those screens, but wouldn’t proceeding stepwise like this be useful? Or is this what moral philosophers commonly do?

Well, would it be unjust to let your child die for lack of a tiny expenditure if you had pots of money? Of course. Your sister’s child? Your neighbor’s child? A child across town? Across the country? Across the world? In each case, why? I know there are lots more steps to the rich world’s failure to provide those screens, but wouldn’t proceeding stepwise like this be useful? Or is this what moral philosophers commonly do?