Is doing the right thing arbitrary or a categorical imperative?
Objectively measured, if there is a default condition, to which we tend no matter what, what’s the use in resisting the inevitable except that it’s something to do.
Providing for our wants and needs is an objective value we can all agree on (“It’s the economy, stupid!”) but we disagree about the means to that end.
World warfare in the modern era has been over political power supported by economic means. WWI produces the Proletarian Revolution and Keynesian economics; and after WWII we have monetarism, the welfare state, and limited war on a long-term basis to supply demand for the resistance.
If we do the wrong thing, how do we measure it? Is there a Minimum Standard of Existence from which derives “the good life” like Aristotle said, or is greed the measure of a commonly divisible standard that measurably owns the right thing to do, yielding to what hosts “the existence” (the objective that, by default, we always tend to).
What the political-economic analyst can’t help but notice is that, no matter what we do to meaningfully control for the risk (the probability of conserving the status quo), changing the status quo (“the hardest thing to do”) is the value being conserved because (you see)…
It’s a free market, after all!