Concur completely. Having the capacity to differentiate or make an explicit distinction for why one set of actions is preferable over the other in any type of way that has a epistemological grounding, is not something the vast majority people have the time, patience, training, personality type, etc. to be able to do.

So then we have a problem don’t we? Either the expectation is that some plurality of humans have the ability to coherently manage this kind of epistemological chain reasoning. Or it is untenable for that level of coherency to be able to drive functional assumptions that are generalizable across all human communities.

And us, we’re back to where all moral philosophers have always gotten stuck, which is to say, we have no objective epistemological grounding for any particular type of moral reasoning chain - making every single, moral debate impossible to agree on generalized first principles.

So how do you structure society in a way such that the default behaviors diffuse power and increase pro social responsibility, given the fact that the current social structures demonstrate infinite examples of anti-social behaviors leading to power and wealth.

That is to say, how do you create a society where nobody even wants to be a millionaire because that level of relative over-consumption relative to others would just feel too bad.