/lit/ - Literature

>>14680318
>It has to if it is to work as a moral principle for a society, you fucking troglodyte.

Why do moral principles have to work for a society? Again, they aren't something explicitly designed to lead to a good outcome (which on a societal wide scale is often impossible).

>It is an group endeavor, you fucking illiterate. Read some anthropology and evolutionary biology before you touch the subject again.

Ok, then why do different people in the same group have different morals? Just because it has a biological game-theoretic origin doesn't mean you are capable of understanding natures internal logic of morality. Real life is a lot more complicated than your toy model tit-for tat game.

>>14680312
Tbh, your right. OP does say lib-right, and George is more lib-left. Though I think his reasoning for wealth distribution is sufficiently different from socialists, and even an-coms to highlight the distinction. I was more trying to argue how it's consistent with the NAP.