• Echedenyan@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.

      • Echedenyan@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        I don’t agree with the last point. That is leave the things to the casuality.

        If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case).

        You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society.

          • Echedenyan@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            I am not sure if you understand what is utilitarianism at all. The issue here is that your idea is completely based on the “incentives” and not solving the real problem behind between the people and I try to show you that based in your consequential POV.

            I am not sure what is your source to set the “needs” as artificial or subjective but as far I know, even in real experience, these can be measured perfectly. In a system where any human is not capable to fit their needs (even between theirselves) humanity doesn’t exist directly. Or maybe you are just using the word “needs” to any wish (artificial need) and not to the direct ones (which allow a human to exist at least and develop itself in equal conditions as minimum).

            In addition, I am not sure if you understand what I say at all. This seems completely more and more mixed in every reply and even obscured.