cliveandrews Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Since large cities offer the biggest and best of everything that civilization has to offer both technological and economic terms, and because human competition is so much stronger in urban areas, can it not be said that large cities are actually morally superior to small towns? Or at least superior in the sense that the major league baseball is superior to the minor leagues? Also, if one finds himself emotionally attached to his small hometown even though bigger and better things exist elsewhere, is he irrational to stay put? Edited January 12, 2009 by cliveandrews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 This has been covered already in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 And the answer is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 One point I did not see covered in the other thread. Large cities could not exist without rural areas. One cannot effectively grow enough food to support a city within a cities boundaries. In that regard, one could just as easily claim that cities are inferior to rural areas, for they are dependent upon the rural farmers for survival. And one would be equally mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Objectivist farmers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.