An Asymmetrical View

I'm a bit late today in posting, mainly because I had hoped I would come up with a solution overnight to my problem I encountered yesterday, but to no avail. Because this is so, I will instead go back to a small issue that I sort of ran into last week.

Harken back to the day I was explaining a loss of wellbeing for one person that caused a gain in the peak value of wellbeing within a world. If you don't remember, I was mentioning when the man with the highest wellbeing in the world robbed a man with lower wellbeing in order to increase his own wellbeing (the peak wellbeing) to a higher level. This is a good thing, according to the pure elitist. However, many people agree that robbing people is wrong (and I assure you, I am one of those people). Thus, as so many other ethical theorists do, I make my view asymmetrical.

What this means is that under my view, you are NOT required to do the good thing, but are instead only required NOT to do the BAD thing. For example, it is not necessary to move to a higher peak wellbeing. However, it is necessary to prevent moving from a high peak wellbeing to a lower peak wellbeing. Thus, it's asymmetrical.

By making it so, I do not require the man with the highest wellbeing to go around robbing everyone left and right in order to increase his own wellbeing.