“Why?”
In economics a lot of what I do–especially when writing for the general public–is to flesh out a thought experiment where the government does something that I consider to be a bad policy. Though it violates some abstract moral principle, it may seem to yield beneficial results. But then, as time passes in the thought experiment, it becomes clear that the harms outweigh the benefits. Turns out violating the abstract moral principle leads to disaster in the long run, when you consider all of the ramifications.
Now suppose before the creation of the material universe, the Devil says to God, “Why be good? Why should I obey you? Is ‘good’ really stronger than ‘evil’?”
And God says, “Yes it is. Here, I’ll show you.”
And then the Devil objects, “Wait! No cheating! We’re not testing whether You are stronger than me. I want a test of whether good per se is stronger than evil.”
And God says, “Yes, I’ll show you.”
How is it turning out? Can the Devil claim a win yet?
Flippancy aside, “Turns out violating the abstract moral principle leads to disaster in the long run, when you consider all of the ramifications.”
I am sure there is some truth in this, but it does depend on the abstract principle. I am sure you will agree that there are many abstract moral principles that some people hold that would not lead to bad results if abandoned.
I am not sure what you had in mind, but much of your writing here is about violation of an economic rather than moral principles.