I'm thinking why it does have a moral component in either case. I think it might have to do with the nature of a financial transaction: it does not the change the world on its own, it is not a solution to any problem.
Suppose there is a low frequency event such as a comet heading for earth; the right thing to do is build a shield or way to reflect it. Suppose there is a flood once in 500 years; the right thing to do is to build dikes.
Money is a virtual thing, we sometimes forget.
Technology and innovation can oftentimes be the alternative for insurance.
I completely agree that taking some reasonable action is one way to reduce the perceived need for insurance. For example, the recent California floods affected populated areas that were never inhabited by the indigenous peoples. Why? They knew from experience that it would flood someday -- maybe not in their lifetime, or even their grandchildrens' lifetimes, but someday. So they didn't build there.
Suppose there is a low frequency event such as a comet heading for earth; the right thing to do is build a shield or way to reflect it. Suppose there is a flood once in 500 years; the right thing to do is to build dikes.
Money is a virtual thing, we sometimes forget.
Technology and innovation can oftentimes be the alternative for insurance.