Quote Originally Posted by rpm View Post
i think the bolded part is contentious in this context. i understand perfectly what you mean, and i agree it is true in an economic game-theory sense. but the majority of anti-capitalist-folk don't accept the fundamental "rules" of the "game" that is consumer-capitalist economics (ie the belief that all agents ought to make decisions based purely on their perceived self-interest, or that other people and their unique skills/traits are purely means-to-ends/commodities, or that the biodiversity/natural processes of the planet ought be secondary considerations to an individual's immediate financial self-interest etc etc) and tend toward more utilitarian principles. there is no morality in game theory so assuming your questions are being asked with this mindset pre-supposed (which the second bolded part leads me to assume) then no, it is never wrong to do anything to anyone (in the "marketplace"). whether or not this economic system is optimal, well that depends on what one thinks an "economy" ought to do - and is a question which does involve morality, and imo is outside the scope of your questions.

forgive the cynicism, it just seems like you're asking questions of morality in a game which has amorality inbuilt. if you wish to discuss morality, then you need to remove the assumption that life is a commodity. because as far as i can tell, there can be no morality unless it is accepted that other being's desires/goals/intentions/wellbeing etc etc are worthy of consideration. commodities don't have goals or intentions and cannot flourish or suffer. they are value-free

also forgive the convoluted delivery. i can't be assed editing any more. trust me, it was worse
I prefer this post to mine.