I’m uncertain what I think about cases of failed contraception, because I don’t know what I think the risk threshold should be to legitimately claim that you haven’t taken on an obligation. After all, even in, say, a car accident that you didn’t intend but did bring about you still seem to have some liability. I guess I think that if abortion is acceptable in cases of failed contraception then it’s also true that fathers who would have desired that an abortion be performed after contraception failure shouldn’t be held legally responsible for caring for the child. At least, I think this is true if the woman had good reason to believe that the man would want her to have one in that eventuality. If she didn’t know this, then I think this would constitute a failure to have a meeting of the minds. In that case I think I would lean toward the view that in order to avoid the responsibility, it was beholden on the man to clearly state his desire prior to having sex, since most women aren’t willing to have an abortion even if they support a right for others to have one.

What’s interesting to me is how this compares with cases where most pro-choice people think abortion is justified. A woman has no obligation, according to their view, to care for a child she conceives as a result of rape or failed contraception, since she didn’t take on the obligation to raise the child. I think your overall approach nicely fits with that sort of view. But if so, then I think you have to oppose current child support laws, which don’t allow a man that kind of option. He has no say in whether a woman carrying his biological child has an abortion, and yet he has the obligation to care for the child if she chooses not to. This is something that advocates of “reproductive freedom” have rarely had any interest in reforming, even though it has all the features of the cases that they seem willing to fight for with extreme rhetoric when it comes to abortion rights except one — that it’s a man’s obligations that get created. But should that make a moral difference when it comes to the obligations that get created on your behalf by others?

“Paper profits never benefit anyone”. The alternative proposed is that companies will seek to survive in a competitive marketplace, creating employment and providing a product or service that will benefit consumers. In this scenario “creative accounting” and other unethical practices would be eliminated.

I don’t think we have your profit maximisation laws here but directors do have legal responsibilities to shareholders including to act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. I feel this approach to legislating company directors allows for more leeway in promoting so called “positive businesses”.