[tbw2]

This is the logical result of relying entirely on care/harm and fairness as moral channels.

Whoever is/acts the most hurt and screams “it isn’t fair” the most is considered the most correct and to be obeyed. Including those who engage in emotional blackmail to get what they want.

[Still Thinking]

I take it from your language that you're familiar with Jonathan Haidt and his five moral foundations analysis. I enjoy listening to Haidt, and think he makes a lot of valid points, especially in terms of equality of outcome vs. opportunity and all the delicate snowflakes growing to be wusses, but I think some of the five foundations have logical problems. For example, care/harm. He says that liberals strongly value it but conservatives only roughly equally with loyalty, purity, etc, and libertarians barely at all.

I contend that libertarians have not the least, but the MOST concern for the well being of others. I hold that freedom is more valuable than free stuff. Liberals are all over the free stuff, but at the cost of freedom. Libertarians want a society where everyone enjoys freedom; therefore Libertarians care more about care/harm, PROPERLY DEFINED, than either liberals or conservatives. There are a couple other areas where I think his old liberal self causes him to botch the foundational definitions, but you get the point.