The Only Commandment

        Socrates remarked in Plato's Republic that the cornerstone of justice is a matter of property. Ownership. What this means is what makes an act just, legal, ethical, or good, versus unjust, illegal, unethical, or wrong, is whether it violates a person's property. Socrates didn't expand upon the idea in great detail, but consider its implications. Murder is wrong because it involves the stealing of a life. Lying is wrong because it involves the stealing of a truth.

        A classic utilitarian ethical philosopher, such as John Stuart Mill, would provide a counterargument to these examples involving a lesser-between-two-evils dilemma. This antithesis arguably silences Socrates. Then again, he'd probably respond by illuminating that, nonetheless, what determines the lesser evil is ultimately an outcome devoid of theft, physical and nonphysical, tangible and intangible. The question this position undoubtedly begs, though, concerns how we define, determine, evaluate, and protect property. 

        It's time for the ethicists, lawyers, and politicians of our world to realize they are all ethicists, really, and it's time for the public sector ("law") and the private sector ("economy") to realize they are both dealing with transactions of value, really. Goodness is value is wealth, wealth is value is goodness. 

        Or not.