Yes, and how is noting this an effective response to the point I make regarding the role that existential variables play in his life – re dasein – predisposing him to choose this particular life; and then concluding that it is “the good life”?
And what of those who argue that his behaviors reflect an immoral lifestyle instead? Those who condemn capitalism and embrace socialism.
Obviously in today’s world he is able to choose to sustain his behaviors. But that is not to say that will always be the case. What becomes crucial in human interactions [historically, culturally] is the extent to which particular behaviors are either rewarded or punished. And the extent to which the conflicting parities are able to effectively argue what it should be one and not the other.
That’s the distinction that I am interested in.
If it is assumed that playing the stock market is virtuous behavior then mr reasonable might set himself the goal of becoming a millionaire by doing so. Then he can ask, “what ought I to do in order to achieve this?”. And if he does become a millionaire he can argue that what he did is “good”. And, if not…if instead he goes bankrupt…then in can be argued what he did was “bad”.
But that does not resolve the conflict that revolves around whether one ought or ought not to embrace capitalism. And my point is that any particular individual will have any particular answer to that question based more on the individual experiences that he or she had rather than by, in using the tools of philosophy, being able to answer the question in the most rational and ethical manner.
Something that, for example, Ayn Rand and the Libertarians attempt to do.
And that, ultimately, philosophy aside, what counts out in the real world is political economy — one’s capacity [power] to enforce a particular narrative/agenda.