I did not choose these axioms because to favor my point. I chose them because they are concise, and by their definition, they try to make everyone happy. Also, they are consistent with all reasonable moral opinions I've seen, and at the same time easily prohibit a lot of obliviously immoral things, like murder, rape, theft, dishonesty, and racism.
These axioms* can also favor points that I do not agree with. In fact, I am having trouble coming up with a solid argument for Dick having a moral obligation to Charlie. I am much more attached to these axioms than to my opinion of property rights.
I don't agree with this axiom. Why should I weight the quality of life of my neighbor as much as my own? I'm not the one who experiences his life. If I weighted them equally, I would consider it just as good to give my neighbor an ice cream cone as to eat it myself- regardless of who paid for it. It would just be a question of hunger and preference.
The axiom does not say that you
have to weight the quality of life of your neighbor as highly as your own. The rules
you follow do. It may be that the best way to insure that everyone has a good quality of life is to have everybody only look out for their own interests only. If this was the case, then it would be morally right to not give a damn about whether your neighbor lives or dies.
In real life, the correct way to insure that everyone has the best quality of life is probably neither that everyone spend all their time trying to help their neighbor, nor that everyone only look out for themselves.
I have not read Free to Choose
. However, it sounds to me that his arguments basically implied axiom A.
customer review wrote:Milton Friedman was an economics professor at the University of Chicago who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his development of monetary economics. This book briefly explains how an economy works. Yet "Free to Choose" is something more. It's a personal statement that we should embrace free markets and freedom for all of us as individuals to make our own decisions. When we freely choose, the economy is more fair because individuals make their own choices with their own benefits and consequences. The economy is more prosperous and more efficient because the economy competed for customers and the best win out. A controlled economy is a huge mistake. The proper role of government should be that of a referee to ensure fair play - not run the game itself. Friedman's ideas moved the global economy ahead to more efficiency and prosperity, yet his ideas were based on the old ideas of liberty and free markets.
Fair, efficient, prosperous, all sound to me like "better approximation of everyone having a good quality of life."
*They are really just utilitarianism.