Let me say, that when the world community strives for greater consent and less zero sum environments, that’s all they can hope to achieve… less. Not absolute.
The 5 stages that a sex dimorphic species must go through, involve intense community around human sexuality.
Problem number one of the mundane world is human sexuality … solve that problem, and your conflicting goods vanish.
I’ve said this before on ilp and I’ll say it to you.
Every conceivable political party solves as exactly the same if you have all good administrators and a good populace … but you can’t have any of that with the divide and conquer nature of human sexuality.
Your Marxism ploy just doesn’t bear out to the actual solution.
Your comfort zone is, “should people be given polio vaccines”. When I’m talking about no polio ever exists again no matter what.
I’m always taking this debate one hierarchy above your comfort zone.
Obviously, it’s more ethical that polio doesn’t exist, it subsumes your conflicting goods argument about it existing.
You though, can look at the situation and state, “well, yeah, if polio didn’t exist, that would be better and my argument would be moot.”
But I take it to the highest possible, consent violations. And you continue to argue about conflicting consents. And I state, “well, if conflicting consents don’t exist, then, like the polio argument, your conflicting goods are irrelevant”
Even if you could conclude an irreconcialable conflicting good, you’d be forced to admit that conflicting goods in and of themselves are bad! You actually state as much in every post as calling it part of your hole: bad. So you are being a moral objectivist already, without even agreeing with me that ANY consent violation proves the reality in question bad in an elevated hierarchy to what you already say is objectively bad.