(Click here to continue on the main path)

Slow down.

I will agree with you that everyone is free to construct their own social ideals. And I'll even agree that social ideals are not susceptible to certain kinds of 'proof.' But what follows from that? Maybe not as much as you think.

I think there are considerations that count for or against various social ideals. You mentioned Hitler. Yes, he had ideals. He wanted to create a society with a strict racial hierarchy. Pure Aryans would be at the top, the Jews would be excluded, and the Slavs would be at the bottom functioning as laborers. Now, do any of us really believe that there is nothing that can be said for or against such an ideal? I agree that certain kinds of proof are not available, but there are weighty considerations to be made, none the less. For openers we could point out that Hitler's ideal would make countless people miserable.

I think that I could bring forward various considerations that would count in favor of the ideal I have put forward. Having done that, I think my original argument makes a plausible deduction from that ideal to the system of property rights that such a society should have.

I could offer various reasons to accept the ideal I have outlined.

• It might be just the sort of thing that a group of people making a hypothetical contract would agree upon. If I were in that group I might press for it because it would give me certain guarantees against the risks encountered by most people during their lives.
  
  
• It would certainly produce a great deal of human happiness and welfare -- the sort of thing that Ann would approve.
  
  
• It would show respect for the basic, intrinsic value of every human being. That should appeal to Ayesha. If we believe in that value, then that is a reason to accept my ideal society as a way to protect it.