Wait, so your ethical system based on achieving goals also has the concept of personal property? How and why did you arrive at the conclusion that the idea of personal property would achieve more goals than not having personal property?Elaro wrote:Terralthra wrote:Sure, but would the world be better if you ate the cookie, or I ate the cookie? The world is equally +1 goal satisfied in either case. Neither case is distinguished in your logic, and that's only the basest level, which doesn't take into account things like the fact that I paid for the cookie, or you could easily buy ten cookies, and so on confounding factors. That's what people are trying to express to you, and it's not getting through.
Yes it is, because the goal of "me eating a cookie" and "you eating a cookie" are different, and must be evaluated individually. How many goals are helped along by you eating the cookie versus me? And this theory encompasses everything that is real, so it does count emotional state, especially if you need to not be distressed to achieve goals, and if me stealing a cookie would distress you, then this theory gives a clear answer as to why you shouldn't steal the cookie.
Do you seriously have no idea what it means to start from first principles in an ethical system? You can't say everything comes from achieving goals, then later on say "but PERSONAL PROPERTY" as if that went without saying. It doesn't.
Also, holy necro.