That’s the part people never really seem to understand. It makes sense though because we’re subjected to the system from birth and it’s all a lot of people know so they can’t grasp the idea of a world outside of that so it can sometimes be difficult to get through to people on that
Optimise for maximum happiness and freedom and minimum suffering on a societal level, while making sure that a certain threshold of freedom-from-suffering is met for every single individual. (So that happiness for the majority is not reached via the suffering of minorities.) Obviously there can be arguments about where we draw the lines for the specifics of these.
Quite a few ways have been developed to measure happiness, wellbeing, flourishing, quality of life, whatever nuance you want to pick.
We have ample proof that it’s a system that fundamentally undermines societal happiness by incentivising the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the wellbeing of people and ecosystems. It’s decades overdue to radically change the way the world’s economy works. (Which is of course not something those with the most power want, so unlikely to happen any time soon.)
It matters a lot though what kind of goal the system incentivises. Imagine if it was people’s happiness and freedom instead of quarterly profits.
That’s the part people never really seem to understand. It makes sense though because we’re subjected to the system from birth and it’s all a lot of people know so they can’t grasp the idea of a world outside of that so it can sometimes be difficult to get through to people on that
It’s definitely valid to disagree about point #3, but then you need to give a better model for #1 and #2