Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5839)	2/14/2001 4:40:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In your opinion is the most important moral consideration "the greatest good for the greatest number"? Not as an absolute <g>. It certainly should be a consideration. But sometimes the moral decision may not provide the greatest good for the greatest number. But I actually said the least harsh to the greatest number, which is a very different thing. Take two examples. Assume the government wants to give free internet service to every American household for one year. Assume there are 100 million households and it costs $100 per year (gov't discount for prepayment and volume discount) for the service. So you need $100 billion dollars to do it. 1. You tax Bill Gates $100 billion. He can afford it. (what's Msft at today?) 2. You tax every household with an income of $50,000 or more $200 and give them the free internet service. You have $100 from each household left for the under $50,000 households. You calculate how much more you need to provide those households the service, and tax every household with an income of $100,000 or more an additional amount to cover the remaining needs, probably less than $200 more per household. Option 1 is the greatest good for the greatest number -- only one person is hurt. Option 2 is the least harsh to the greatest number. Big difference, especially to Bill Gates!