You don't draw too much of a distinction, but Moral Philosophy and Economics are two distinct and separable subjects. Comparing them is comparing apples to oranges.
The former lies solely within the mind and in ones own choices, where one is free to choose, whereas the latter is largely based in observation of external dynamics where continued survival is contingent upon said system.
Additionally, at the time of writing there were many observations made, and the process of boiling down to correct principles is an iterative process. What few seem to realize is Adam Smith's Labor Value Theorem was foundationally flawed (but everything else had great impact), LVT was disproven later (Subjective Value Theorem by Carl Menger iirc), but is still referenced and in use today by Marxists and other related groups.
To contradict that last wall of text, who decides what constitutes harm? What definition is being used for this? If one does not properly define what they mean, they can be right (in their head) because definitions are fluid and contradictory encompassing all possible circumstances while having absolutely no meaning.
Many people call these types of communications insanity or madness because they provide no value or benefit. These are also common talking points/structures found in Socialist and Communist propaganda which don't represent the entirety of the subject or authors, let alone in a rationally principled way.
You don't draw too much of a distinction, but Moral Philosophy and Economics are two distinct and separable subjects. Comparing them is comparing apples to oranges.
The former lies solely within the mind and in ones own choices, where one is free to choose, whereas the latter is largely based in observation of external dynamics where continued survival is contingent upon said system.
Additionally, at the time of writing there were many observations made, and the process of boiling down to correct principles is an iterative process. What few seem to realize is Adam Smith's Labor Value Theorem was foundationally flawed (but everything else had great impact), LVT was disproven later (Subjective Value Theorem by Carl Menger iirc), but is still referenced and in use today by Marxists and other related groups.
To contradict that last wall of text, who decides what constitutes harm? What definition is being used for this? If one does not properly define what they mean, they can be right (in their head) because definitions are fluid and contradictory encompassing all possible circumstances while having absolutely no meaning.
Many people call these types of communications insanity or madness because they provide no value or benefit. These are also common talking points/structures found in Socialist and Communist propaganda which don't represent the entirety of the subject or authors, let alone in a rationally principled way.