No, what I am interested in exploring is the extent to which mr reasonable’s rendition of “the good life” is rooted existentially in the life that he lived [in dasein] or if it can in fact be argued [using the tools of philosophy] to be the sort of life that all rational men and women are obligated to conclude is in fact “a good life”.
Now, wiggle out of taking the discussion there.
Also, in making what I construe to be that crucial distinction between the behaviors that he has chosen to acquire and then to sustain this life — playing the stock market — and an argument able to establish that this sort of behavior is essentially reasonable and moral.
My point is that mr reasonable either does or does not earn income playing the market. This is either a fact or it is not.
But some argue that playing the market exemplifies rational, virtuous behavior while others argue that, in being part and parcel of the capitalist political economy, it is not. That socialism [one or another rendition of it] is a more reasonable and ethical mode of human interaction.
Or there are even “scientific” Marxists who argue that historically this behavior may still prevail but given the extent to which “dialectical materialism” is a rational point of view, some day, down the road, “dog eat dog” capitalism will be replaced by “all for one and one for all” Communism.
Of course [here and now] that seems rather elusive. Perhaps even illusive.
But how is either side able to demonstrate that their own rendition of what constitutes “natural” or “ideal” behavior – or “the good life” – is in fact the case?
There are also folks here who claim that mr reasonable is a “drug dealer”. Is this in fact true? I have no idea.
My argument is only that he is or he is not. There are either facts able to confirm it or facts able to expose it as a lie. I am only interested in exploring the extent to which philosophers are able to judge these behaviors [deontologically] as necessarily Right or Wrong, Good or Evil.
In a world without God.