It's called the universal destination of goods.
>> Universal destination of goods.
>> And, and what it means is that already Pope
Leo in the 19th century said private property is fine.
But it can't override basic human need, private property is not invaluable.
It's human dignity that needs to be treated as the higher good.
And so if a rich person says this is my
food, I don't have to share it with that starving person, it's my right.
This is a libertarian point of view for example.
>> Right.
>> That liberty is the number one value.
I believe that this is a wrong consideration.
That property rights are bound in a moral framework.
Whether it's Aristotelian or Catholic, or I should say Methodist.
Because this is also, John Wesley and the Methodists played
an incredible role in history in fighting slavery first.
In saying that this a kind of property rights that is inconsistent.
With the human good, and it was the
Methodists that played the dominant role in infusing
morality into what was one of the great
moral victories of modern history, the end of slavery.
So I believe
this is something for all of us, I am a big fan of the field of ethics.
I could read it endlessly.
>> I can see that.
>> I find myself pretty eclectic, but I also find that the, great
sages, whether it's Buddha, or whether it's Jesus, or whether it's
the Jewish injunction called tzedek tirdof, which in
Hebrew means, justice, justice shall you pursue.
All of these to my mind speak the same basic point.
Which is that we are human beings in a society of others.
And it is our moral responsibility to take cognizance and respect of humanity.
And Kant of course introduced his categorical imperative and and Bentem
introduced his Utilitarianism and Rawls introduced his Maximin and
principle, students should learn, enjoy, think hard, reflect, apply.
But one thing I would say about ethics is if you apply a doctrine, and it turns
out to lead to bizarre conclusions, maybe your doctrine is too simple.
>> Yeah.
>> This is my view of the problem with libertarianism.
>> Yeah.
>> Which is that, yes, you can take a strong doctrine and then end up
with a view that says that the rich can lead the, the poor to die.
And that is taken by some as a philosophical epiphany.
I just regard it as, as a measure of the paucity of the fundamental basis of
the Libertarian Philosophy.
>> See, you're, you're, a pluralist in your approaches to to all of these things
and, and, you make sure that you don't follow a series
of steps that leads you into a dogmatic response to anything, because dogma
is never going to be as complex as the situation you're trying to solve.
So it sounds like in all of these things, you use
many resources to try to combat a very real problem and.
>> I, I, I have found if I may say
and maybe it's the nature of how I have viewed this.
I've been asked in many times and sometimes I put myself forward to say here
is a problem that needs to be solved. Now, when you do that you're working
with people in different cultures, different
races, different religions, different world outlook.
If you are too dogmatic, you can say
goodbye to the chances to actually solve that problem.
And therefore it probably comes from my starting point, which is that