tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post116357255192168968..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Is Economic Prosperty Morally Irrelevant?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1163621937292879512006-11-15T12:18:00.000-08:002006-11-15T12:18:00.000-08:00Julian -- good point. But I don't think it necess...Julian -- good point. But I don't think it necessarily makes Rawls-ish theories more libertarian. On the one hand, as you say, it limits our moral <EM>obligations</EM> to provide for others. Once they've reached the specified minimum, they have no further positive claim on us. On the other hand, it removes any moral <EM>limitation</EM> on interventions so long as they don't push anyone below the minimum. Thus, the government is free to (say) put substantial limits on maximum income just to make other people less envious, as long as doing so doesn't make anyone fall below the morally relevant income threshold.<BR/><BR/>More broadly: if you say that only things in class "A" are morally relevant, then everything in class "not-A" is morally irrelevant -- which seems to imply an anything-goes position with respect to anything in "not-A," at least morally speaking.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.com