> But those purposes are only allowed because they serve greater purpose. On their own they are meaningless.
This gets it backwards. In most places, we haven't arranged society as "everything is banned except for this list of allowed activities," more as "everything is allowed except for this list of banned activities."
We're not necessarily good at divining utility of actions when deciding what should be banned, either.
That any individual activity serves some greater good is a happy accident, there's no natural law that individuals will take actions that are net positive when you zoom out.
I was trying to build value framework, not legal one - it does not matters what is allowed or banned if we cannot assess its value in context of sth (I used society in this case).
The free for all strategy (libertarianizm?) may be a great diacovery strategy but it does very little for building and preservin things that works (that were discovered by it). I sincerlly believe that real freedom ends with strongest psyhopaths stomping down on week that are on their way to fullfill their desires.
So even if its all happy accident on the lowest level there is a meta game of rules far above it that prevents our world from collapsing (at least for now)
This gets it backwards. In most places, we haven't arranged society as "everything is banned except for this list of allowed activities," more as "everything is allowed except for this list of banned activities."
We're not necessarily good at divining utility of actions when deciding what should be banned, either.
That any individual activity serves some greater good is a happy accident, there's no natural law that individuals will take actions that are net positive when you zoom out.