Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 22, 2007 16:15:26 GMT -4
So does the situation change with health conditions that are not contagious?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 22, 2007 16:29:40 GMT -4
Are you asking whether the situation only applies to times when poor people might make rich people sick? Should we want health care for people of lesser means only when their illnesses threaten those of greater means? Is that what you are suggesting?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 22, 2007 16:47:24 GMT -4
Gillian suggested that it's in the interest of societies to keep even the poor members healthy because whatever health problems they have may spread. I'm pointing out that this sort of enlightened self-interest argument doesn't apply if the health conditions in question are not contagious, such as bi-polar disorder.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 22, 2007 17:34:23 GMT -4
She was adding a specific idea to the general argument. The totality of the argument is not that access to health care will stop the plague. The larger idea is that society as a whole will be enhanced if society's members have access to proper health care.
Mental health issues can have a serious impact on the individual's income earning ability. Should we allow access to mental health services to only those who can pay?
I take issue with the idea that we are “forced” to do this. We live in a democracy. I have not been for the Iraq war since before it started. I don’t agree with a lot of things my country does, but I do agree with many other things my country does -- so I choose to live here. I vote. I pay taxes. This is the way it works in this particular democracy.
While I am not particularly affluent, neither am I poor. I know that it will cost me something in taxes to insure those in my country with less wealth. I want to live in a country that takes care of the poor. I believe that without health, it is very difficult for any person to accomplish his or her goals. I want those in my country to have a chance to live life to the fullest, and health is only the first step. I feel this way even more so for my country's children. If I can help, I will.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 22, 2007 17:54:46 GMT -4
I personally believe that the society I live in will be healthier if everyone has the same access to health care. I believe children should be given special protection, as they can't choose their parents. Those are subjective reasons that go hand in hand with my subjective view of morality.
You are certainly free to believe whatever you want, and that is the essence of subjectivity. However, by making universal health care a law, you are forcing your morality on me, and with the power of the police and justice system to ensure compliance. The issue concerns the justification for a subjective morality that can cross out of your personal boundary and invade mine.
Jason suggested that the world provides a ready-made morality that we all should live by. I wondered if the counterclaims that morality is subjective were intended as a defense to protect individual freedom, sort of a, “don't tread on me with your Bible,” or at least a, “don't tread on my morality.”
Gillian wrote, “It is in society's best interests to keep even poor people healthy.” “Society's best interests” sounds exactly like what most were arguing against here, arguing that there is no such universal moral imperative, or if there were, it is unknowable.
It is now starting to sound like “morality is subjective” is meant as an offense, as a way for one to push one's personal opinions on others. If so, I doubt that was the intended result.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 22, 2007 18:19:10 GMT -4
We live in a representative democracy. Through our representation in local and national government, we work to determine what is best for the country.
In this democracy, we inevitably end up funding some things that we don’t agree with. I actually know a couple of people who think the Apollo program was a huge waste of money. They didn’t get to opt out of paying for it, however. I personally disagree with the idea of school vouchers taking money from public schools to pay for private schools. But still I pay my taxes. If I want to change it, I can get involved in the political process and make my voice heard.
And if, in this democracy, enough of us see value in providing proper health care for citizens of all means, we will make that happen. That’s how it works in this democracy. You will be no more “forced” into it than you are forced to accept universal police and fire services. If you want to get involved in the process and argue that poor people should accept their lot in life and get on with dying, that is your right.
There is such a thing as “the public good.” It may be subjective, but that does not mean that it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 22, 2007 20:46:46 GMT -4
That is very well argued, wdmundt. You have to realize that I haven't been able to answer that damn poll question at the top of the forum yet because I still haven't sorted out what everyone means by "subjective" and "objective". This is quite a momentous decision for me, keeping me up night after night. I don't want to let the group down by going into the voting booth ill-informed!
I have gathered that there are two intermingled dimensions that are being measured on the subjective-objective scale in this thread. One of them is along the personal-universal dimension. The other is along a dimension that has personal opinion at one end and self-existent truth at the other.
A remaining question, as I mentioned before, was whether the claim of "subjective morality" was a form of moral fence erected to keep Jason and his bible out of our personal lives. The latest discussions have revealed that this is not the case. Subjective morality, it appears, implies that there are no fences, that we each belong to society, and that society through the democratic process will demarcate and secure the fence boundaries as it sees fit for the public good.
We live in a representative democracy.
That should be: We live in a constitutional democracy. The Founding Fathers had the foresight to protect particular freedoms by limiting the powers of the government, see especially the ninth and tenth amendments. They had no qualms about erecting fences, to continue that metaphor, to define and protect freedoms for each and every individual from the will of the majority. (Except the slaves, of course, but this was a government undertaking, after all. Sigh.)
There is such a thing as “the public good.” It may be subjective...
Oh, man. Now I am confused all over again. That does it. I am going to take up drinking...
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 22, 2007 20:57:18 GMT -4
With moderation, I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 22, 2007 21:34:16 GMT -4
You are certainly free to believe whatever you want, and that is the essence of subjectivity. However, by making universal health care a law, you are forcing your morality on me, and with the power of the police and justice system to ensure compliance. The issue concerns the justification for a subjective morality that can cross out of your personal boundary and invade mine. By making universal health care a law you are providing all citizens in your country equal access to health care. If it crosses your personal boundary, it is in the same way as providing a police force to protect you, a fire department to save your life and your home or public schools to educate your children. I mean could you not say that you should have the right to opt out of paying taxes for those services? You could say that paying taxes for anything infringes on your rights then. All levels of government have laws which are based on a subjective morality (I would prefer to call them ethical issues, but what the hey). I doubt if leaders of any country know the mind of God (if he exists, of course). Most laws are made and enforced to protect its citizens and to ensure stability. Through our elective process, a democratic government should be doing what is best for all members of society. Of course, to get 100% agreement for the decisions made is near impossible. Being subjective, our laws reflect the views of the majority in most cases. But you can't please everyone all the time. Jason's ideal society would be different from Gillianren's, Joe's would be different than wdmundt's. Bill Thompsons would be different than Jay's. In Canada, universal health care is looked upon by almost all Canadians as a right, not a privilege. But the costs are high and getting higher still, eating up more of the budget as the population gets older. Here, the controversy is over having a two tier health system: should someone who has the money be able to get that hip replacement right now at a private clinic instead of being put on a six month waiting list? And here, most people are divided on this issue - they are afraid our government would rely more and more on private clinics and our public health care would start to erode. I don't think there is much resentment of rich people getting services quicker. Some Canadians will go to the States to get medical procedures done, because it is usually quicker. One drawback of universal health care is that people start to think it's free, when it isn't. They go to their doctor, or clinic or hospital for every little thing, driving up costs. Was that a cough? Must go to the clinic. Might have caught something. My leg is sore today. Gotta get that checked out. You know what I mean. But on the whole, I don't know how people can do without universal health care, How can someone making $15.000 a year in the States afford to have a baby? Doesn't that cost about six grand? I don't rush my kids to the doctor for coughing, but in the first year of my son's life we had to go to the clinic about five times. My daughter has asthma, and has been to the hospital numerous times, she needs an inhaler and other medications. Would she have suffered more if we didn't have a health care system? Luckily, our work insurance covers medications, dental and optics. Universal health care doesn't pay for everything.
Only nations which have a solid Christian foundation (in Europe, the Americas, and Australia) guarantee free speech and freedom of religion. These are also the source regions for theories of tolerance, human rights, and democracy. Now Jason seems to think that Christianity has a more objective morality. By Americas does he include Chile, Argentina etc.? Or how about the Catholic nation of Mexico? Of Haiti? They are not exactly societies who has fair and decent governments most of the time. . And they are Christian societies. I think a lot of Canadian and American immigrants were trying to get away from religious intolerance that was rampant in Europe. In the last century Spain, Italy and Germany among others were 'christian' nations that had governments intolerant of human rights. Does Australia have a good record in the treatment of its aboriginals? Or New Zealand? Or Canada? Or the U.S.? It doesn't take much for a nation to suddenly lose its grip on its core values. Witness Japanese internment during WWII. And its been happening more and more now in how we view and treat Muslims in the after wake of Sept. 11. If there ever is another attack by Muslim terrorists, then look out - you'll see how really intolerant some societies are. Laws infringing on human rights will be passed in the name of national security - just like the good laws in 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbour. The American Government seems to thrive on fear, while ours puts it head in the sand. (It could never happen here!) Jason seems to be saying that a Christian nation is aware of a objective morality and that Moslem, Hindu, or Buddhist nations are mired in the mud of a subjective one. Can I call that dumb without offending anyone? At different times in history, most of the nations in the past and present have gone through stages where its 'morality' has lapsed, or at least its leadership has. You can pick and choose the best period to fit your needs in this argument, but there are shameful episodes in every country's closet. There are times when I see the news on and I'm so glad I don't live in the States. I would be afraid. Don't think for a second that the U.S. borders on perfection! Or Canada either for that matter. There are many rulers throughout history that were decent, moral and just. After Asoka became became a Buddhist, he became formed a society based on tolerance, equality, and public service. It could only last his lifetime however, because governments change and so does it treatment of its own citizens and neighbours.
A remaining question, as I mentioned before, was whether the claim of "subjective morality" was a form of moral fence erected to keep Jason and his bible out of our personal live Who would be erecting this fence? Maybe I missed some of the posts, or didn't understand them. Jason started this thread suggesting that if God exists, then there is an objective morality. He also seems to think that the only way to be aware of that morality is to be a Christian. Quite an insult to other believers of other faiths I would think. (If I've misrepresented you Jason, then feel free to straight this out - indeed scold me if you will). People have been searching for God for thousands of years. Many have claimed to receive divine inspiration from their God, and insight into their God's mind, wishes and yes, morality. And you can read your history books and see how well this 'objective reality' is reflected in the doings of various societies. I would say not very. Doesn't matter what religion - pick a name out of a hat if you'd like - there is a pattern of 'subjective morality' strewn about, changing, twisting and turning, going back wards and forwards. High periods and low, moments of seemingly brilliant enlightenment only to dissipate and shrink to near non-existence. Barbaric rulers, brilliant thinkers, dim-witted kings and compassionate patriarchs. You will get all kinds throughout mankind's history, yet a definitive canon that expresses a true objective morality for all of us is yet to be written, in my opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 22, 2007 23:50:52 GMT -4
Yes, there are other benefits to society to provide health care to its poor besides epidemics. I have an illness that does not generally involve its sufferers snapping and killing lots of other people, but those illnesses do exist. It is in society's best interest to ensure that the people who have those conditions are given proper medical treatment before they become a danger to themselves and others, not just after. It is in society's best interests to lose as few working hours to medical problems as possible. People who are able to seek health care early take less health care.
And, of course, I don't believe that all a government is to do is to protect its people's freedoms. I think it is equally important that it protect its people's welfare.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2007 0:34:48 GMT -4
I mean could you not say that you should have the right to opt out of paying taxes for those services? You could say that paying taxes for anything infringes on your rights then. Being forced to pay taxes for anything does infringe our rights, or rather, we have chosen to give up some rights to income we produced in order to support systems that most of us agree are valuable. That is why there is an argument over health care in the U.S. right now - to determine if we value it enough to give even more income (and therefore power) to the government. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That sounds very much like a declaration of objective truth to me. Actually that's a problem with the U.S. health system too. Because most people pay for health care with their insurance they overuse it or don't look for competition among the providers. That is, by the way, how people afford a baby - they pay for the cost with health insurance over a longer time. Not exactly. I'm merely pointing out that Christianity has done better than other world religions in approaching what is right. Not perfection, by any means, but when the people from your religious traditions are the ones who came up with the ideas that make our civilization what it is then you may wonder if that religion provides something that others lack. Compare the best with the best. Look at the best Christian nations and compare them with the best nations of other traditions. And then perhaps compare the worst with the worst as well. Hogwash. Muslims have certainly been making much more noise about being a persecuted minority, but the vast majority of people in the U.S. have been bending over backwards to show that they are not prejudiced. In fact we're wasting quite a few resources in proving that we're not prejudiced - screening little old ladies and 8-year olds at airports, for instance - when it would make much more sense from a purely logistical standpoint to concentrate on young Muslim men (no I'm not arguing that we should perform racial profiling). It will have to be a very serious attack (like a nuke in L.A. or something similar) to make U.S. citizens begin to believe that security is more important than tolerance. And that's hogwash too. The American Government would like nothing more than to bury its head back in the sand and pretend 9/11 (and the Iraq war) never happened. But we happen to have people in charge right now that refuse to turn their backs on reality like that. And fortunately all the significant candidates for President seem to be taking the same realistic attitude, so this should stay the case. That's not exactly what I'm saying either. I think all religions have some awareness of what really is moral or immoral. Some are wiser in some areas than others, and others are wiser in different areas. When the things are summed up some perform better overall than others, even with their weaknessess. Then you're watching TV too much rather than actually living here and seeing what it's really like. I met people in Holland all the time who wondered how I could feel safe walking down the street - they all thought I would be mugged or caught in a gang war any minute. They're the worst nations in the world, except for all the other nations. Actually I started by asking exactly the inverse of that - "Is God's existence necessary for an objective (that is, independent of human opinion) morality?" And I am the only one who has answered "no - an objective morality can exist without God" so far. Consider yourself scolded, because that is not at all what I believe. Every faith has good, moral people in it. Nearly every faith in the world is a force for good and a motivation for its followers to act in a moral fashion. And by "nearly" I am only exempting obvious fringe groups like radical islamofascists or the Manson family, not major religions like Islam or Bhuddism that could only have survived as long as they have if they had some measure of real value to offer their followers. I said earlier in this thread that everyone has an innate moral sense that tells them what is right (in LDS theology it is called "The Light of Christ"). You don't have to be Christian to have this - everyone has it. But if you ask me "which faith is the best at motivating people to live a moral life" - in effect which religion shows them best how to listen to their own inner sense of righteousness - then I will answer "my own" of course. That's the nature of imperfect mankind and how it practices religion, not something inherent to religion itself. wdmundt wrote:So your only justification is "I have more people on my side"? What happens when this majority changes it's mind of what comprises "the public good"? If the only justification for government action is the will of the majority then the minority has no right to complain when they are trampled by it, do they?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 23, 2007 10:25:57 GMT -4
There is such a thing as “the public good.”
It is in society's best interest to...
Notice the words “best” and “good.” These, of course, are moral qualities. People jumped all over Jason for suggesting that “the good”, that is, that which we are obligated to pursue was external to each of us, namely, in the world itself and the way it worked with God acting as a parent figure helping us discover that world.
Aren't the two statements above guilty of the same mistake? The first literally implies that there is a good common to the public. The second statement speaks not of an individual's interest, but of some sort of “social” interest, as if there was an interest separate and apart from individual interests.
For the record, I think “interest” and “good” are solely a property of the individual. My happiness, for example is the standard of the good. Or, what promotes my lifelong happiness is good. (Jason has been calling this view “enlightened self-interest.”) There is no good external to me that I am morally obligated to. If I vote against universal health care, it is because it is in my interest to live in a society with an efficient, market-driven, and technically competent medical system. If I debate with any of you on the matter, it is because I am trying to show you that it is in your interest too.
Anyway, is it not hypocritical to argue against Jason's objective morality and yet argue for a “public good” or a “society's best interest”?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 23, 2007 10:37:10 GMT -4
If it crosses your personal boundary, it is in the same way as providing a police force to protect you, a fire department to save your life and your home or public schools to educate your children.
Are we prepared to make the same argument to women who live in societies that severely limit their legal rights, who prevent them from voting, holding public office, of freely moving around the country, of walking in public with their hair visible?
The function of the police, by the way, is to protect my rights, that is to keep trespassers from crossing my fence line, so to speak. The fire department, I suppose, also protects my property, like the time the fellow in the next apartment thought it would be a good idea to empty his ashtray containing a just-finished cigarette into the plastic kitchen garbage can and then leave for an hour.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 23, 2007 14:08:06 GMT -4
The function of the police, by the way, is to protect my rights, that is to keep trespassers from crossing my fence line, so to speak. The fire department, I suppose, also protects my property, like the time the fellow in the next apartment thought it would be a good idea to empty his ashtray containing a just-finished cigarette into the plastic kitchen garbage can and then leave for an hour. Your rights, your property: you defend 'em ;D [tongue-firmly-in-cheek] I thought that was why you guys needed the absolute right to buy assault rifles, RPGs, tactical nuclear weapons &c on a whim at a moment's notice [/tongue-firmly-in-cheek]
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 23, 2007 14:50:11 GMT -4
Democracy is what we call it. I’m sorry it has lost favor with you.
Well, thanks to some, we seem to live in a society where money trumps everything. I don’t think it is for the public good that we write laws that favor the rich over the poor, but here we are. We are also dumbing down our education system by under-funding our public schools. If we get to a place where only the rich can afford a decent education, then I'm quite sure it will be possible to tell the populace exactly what to think.
The will of the majority is not always used to favor the majority. Some people see value in providing for the needy, the sick and the dying. I believe that is what we are talking about. I am amused by how the wealthy and the powerful become the oppressed in this debate.
Honestly, Jason, I don't get you. I get that you are a conservative and I get that you are a Christian. But the argument for not providing health care for the needy seems to be about money. I'm sure you can justify it, but if Jesus exists, I would like to think that he would be for taking care of the poor. I think he is supposed to have said something about that.
|
|