Jacques Rousseau

Not quite. He is the one who argued that killing toddlers isn’t morally equivalent to killing persons, and that parents should be given the option to kill children with disabilities.

“Proper” relativism, which is what I argue she’s alluding to, is not something I could call useful at all, because it obliterates the possibility of inter-agent communication on any useful level (there are no stable grounds for agreement/disagreement/dialogue).

That (increased taxation) would certainly be better, yes, but it would be an entirely new model. On the current model — even if flawed, as I agree it is — UCT has been doing more than comparator institutions to assist the poor to study. I do however agree that the basic premise of the system is vulnerable to this criticism.

Prof. Benatar wrote a response, but was averse to setting up a Medium account. I volunteered to post it for him, and it can be found here — https://medium.com/@JacquesR/between-the-two-horns-of-t-o-molefe-s-dilemma-ee789b27a019