Reasoning to a practical, moral conclusion

[prof]

. ...What you may not recognize is that even in that, one's personal need to have others treat them "good" in their mind may require being "bad" to the other. For instance, if there is a tree on such an island that is only able to feed one person ... Do you opt to favor yourself in order to preserve your own life which may act to disfavor the other? Do you opt to both agree to starve, where both of you lose your life? And in the last case, what purpose would this serve?

Greetings, Scott

This passage quoted above shows that you are open-minded enough to have read a little in the booklet, for it refers to a scenario, a thought-experiment, I offered there.

Why can't I - if I'm one of the two individuals - say to the other: "Let's share this fruit from this tree. You take half and I'll take the other half. Okay?" {Incidentally, Scott, did you ever hear of the well-researched actual longevity benefits of caloric restriction?}

You see, I reject the premise that is pessimistic for the reasons explained in LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, pp. 44-45, wherein the problem with pessimism was explicated.

By cooperating, and sharing, the two will have a life of much higher quality than if they had the attitude: "It's you or it's me! If one of us wins, the other loses."

Instead, one who knows his Ethics understands that we maximize the value we get out of life if we aim for win/win outcomes. A double-win enhances both parties.

Can we agree on this?

There is no limit to growth on this third rock from the Sun. We have the resources. There are no shortages of materials, or of brains. It is a question of distribution: will we be selfish and hoard? Or will we be generous and share our abundance?

Hold in your thought the Pot-luck supper or picnic spread. One might wonder: where did all this food come from??! Each contributor brought a little, but the total effect is what Economists call "a multiplier." That is the situation in our world. ...No shortages. No "tree that will feed only one".... Reflect on it. It's true.

[Scott Mayers]

. ...What you may not recognize is that even in that, one's personal need to have others treat them "good" in their mind may require being "bad" to the other. For instance, if there is a tree on such an island that is only able to feed one person ... Do you opt to favor yourself in order to preserve your own life which may act to disfavor the other? Do you opt to both agree to starve, where both of you lose your life? And in the last case, what purpose would this serve?

Greetings, Scott

This passage quoted above shows that you are open-minded enough to have read a little in the booklet, for it refers to a scenario, a thought-experiment, I offered there.

Why can't I - if I'm one of the two individuals - say to the other: "Let's share this fruit from this tree. You take half and I'll take the other half. Okay?" {Incidentally, Scott, did you ever hear of the well-researched actual longevity benefits of caloric restriction?}

You see, I reject the premise that is pessimistic for the reasons explained in LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, pp. 44-45, wherein the problem with pessimism was explicated.

By cooperating, and sharing, the two will have a life of much higher quality than if they had the attitude: "It's you or it's me! If one of us wins, the other loses."

Although I noticed you mention an island example, the one I used expanded on it realistically [I often think of island samples and have independently thought of this one myself.] You did not propose the scenario I gave from what I'd read and so felt compelled to add it. You perceive that by sharing, this is sufficient to survival. But I defined the survival on this island based on natures actual limitations. You can't just pull out a save by redefining my scenario with a 'new' kind of interpretation of what I stated. I stated that the tree only had enough to grant ONE person enough to survive on for a given period. As such, even if they both 'shared', they both assure their death as each would NOT get the predefined NEED I described in this imaginary scenario.

Your optimism ignores the reality of the world to actually have limited resources. I am not being 'pessimistic' but 'realistic' here. Nature does not care to simply magically provide where we lack. But if you're proposing it does, this relies on a nature that cares...a god-like being.

Note that I'm for equal distribution even with regards the fact that our political institutions are designed with the aim to serve the people by the people as a democratic objective.

[Scott Mayers]

By the way, prof, if you take the fair distribution (sharing) idea further, does this mean that we'd also have to require creating rules such as population limits. Using an island analogue, if say four people were there in which two are of women and two, men, and each is paired up, imagine if the capacity of the island could only produce sustenance for at best five people. Would you agree that they'd have to either agree to "share" the idea of not having freedom to reproduce or negotiate only one couple the privilege in an unbalanced way? Should both couples be privileged to the having offspring?