*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not trying to define morality because it cannot be defined, IMO. Morality is a personal and cultural grey area, and the collective disagreement among all ethicists seems ubiquitous. What is moral in one ethical system is immoral in another, and there's no way to evaluate the goodness of one system against another aside from invoking their own internal claims of what is moral in the first place.

If you want to say either person is acting morally or immorally, you have to state the fundamental assumptions inherent in your moral code and then we're not talking about the specifics of your judgement, but whether the code is good for us.

You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.
Which is fine and all, and I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism. You're asserting that you or I or the camera lady have the right to decide what's best for the hoarder lady, and to evaluate the amount of good that is done by allowing her to hoard compared to the predicted good that happens when she doesn't hoard.
The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other. Then the mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're right.

What is the moral right for the hoarder is to protect the security of herself and her kin.
What is the moral right for the camera lady is to try to shame the hoarder as it reduces her own perceived security.
(TP security may be hogwash, but it's obv. a real perceived concern to both people in the video.)

Both people have a claim to the moral high ground, and there's nothing deeper to the discussion.


My point is that it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady. That's her call. I certainly don't want hoarder lady telling me what's best for me, so I don't see any righteousness in the rest of us telling her what is best for her.
We don't even know her.

***
Even if her "need" is purely speculative - i.e. even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP is cheap today, but could be expensive tomorrow and that's a good business opportunity to buy low and sell high - even if that, that's just capitalism at work. She's not morally wrong for seeing a business opportunity and striking while the iron's hot, so to speak. That's just business.

[boost]

it's not up to you or me or anyone what is best for the hoarder lady.

even if her whole ambition was to speculate that TP... that's just capitalism at work.

MMM, you make a case for moral relativism, but then you sneak in moral judgements.

The thing is, you don't know the answers to any of the questions about "how good is A vs. B" You only have an emotional response to side with one lady or the other.

I disagree. In a utilitarian framework-- you may not be able to quantify things precisely, and of course mistakes will be made, but that's due to a lack of tools. I don't claim that we can settle any of this for certain, but we can definitely orient ourselves in the correct direction. Either you're a nihilist (you're not), or you're placing your bet on the improbable position that there's no moral difference between these two actions.

I'm not opposed to Utilitarianism on the whole, but in this case, it's promoting socialism.

As poop pointed out, this is oddly lazy.

What is your stance on war time rationing in WWII? How about your thoughts on much of the economy being shifted to a planned economy during the same time?

You seem to be latching on to Utilitarianism and saying that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is to not hoard, but to evenly distribute the scarce resource.

There's a couple of issues here. First, it's not a scarce resource, there's plenty of TP. It's a logistics issue. TP is a low cost, low profit commodity that also happens to be bulky. Therefore it doesn't make sense to have large quantities of it at the retail end of the supply chain, as the $/sqft to warehouse it is dramatically higher. Do to this quirk in the supply chain, if there's a run on essential(ish) supplies, consumers will be given a false sense of scarcity.

Second, my stance is not that things should be evenly distributed, but that they should be allocated to their best use. That may mean even distribution, but it may mean simply each person should make a judgement call on what they personally need. If you end up towards the hoarding end of the spectrum, you risk being called out. If too many people end up on the hoarding end of the spectrum, then we are forced to some sort of enforced even distribution. Right now we have the mildest stage of that, retailers limiting quantities/purchase.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"allocated to their best use"

According to who? According to the hoarder lady? Or according to the camera woman?
They disagree about how to best allocate the resource.

Who are you to stand over them in judgement? By what authority do you claim that right?
Why should your voice be any louder or more significant than the 2 voices already in disagreement at the outset?
What do you add other than your personal opinion?

If we're just talking personal opinions, then why do you expect / want mine and yours to be the same?

[boost]

"allocated to their best use"

According to who? According to the hoarder lady? Or according to the camera woman?
They disagree about how to best allocate the resource.

Who are you to stand over them in judgement? By what authority do you claim that right?
Why should your voice be any louder or more significant than the 2 voices already in disagreement at the outset?
What do you add other than your personal opinion?

If we're just talking personal opinions, then why do you expect / want mine and yours to be the same?

We're social creatures, we're talking about the functioning of society. It is by all of our authority. By what right can you tell me not to walk around in public naked, the way I was born, my natural state? Well, you (if not you, the royal you) do tell me that, and enforce that norm-- first through shame, then through force. Some norms we codify into law, some we leave unwritten and discourage outside of the legal system.