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 14:54:41 GMT -4
Self-reliance tends to be both overrated and overestimated. There may once have been a time when a solitary human was able to obtain, process and manufacture everything necessary to sustain life from its raw materials, but such an existence was, to borrow a phrase, nasty, brutish and short. As, no doubt were those who lived it. Any human existence, at or above hunter-gatherer level, requires cooperation, interaction and interdependence on others. What is good for the individual is inextricably connected to what is good for the collective. That that "good" is subjective may be frightening, but nonetheless appears to be true; so far as we can determine: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is at the end of the day, merely an assertion. Sacrificing virgins to ensure the sunrise has been held to be for the common good, with the increasing prevalence of 'fundamentalist' viewpoints, who can guarantee that it will never be so again? Perhaps the safeguard lies in diversity: no-one can be in the majority all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 23, 2007 15:31:47 GMT -4
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 I would have to agree with you.
"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. Whether it really is or not is another matter. Most people think that their subjective truths are in fact objective.
I'm merely pointing out that Christianity has done better than other world religions in approaching what is right. I wonder if it has more to do with living in a true democracy. Some of the 'christian' countries that I referred to aren't democratic. Maybe that is why they have less tolerance and freedoms?
Look at the best Christian nations and compare them with the best nations of other traditions. See above.
ogwash. 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.
You would know your country better than I. If what you say is accurate, then I stand corrected. Racial Profiling seems to be a dirty word nowadays, but I don't know why someones's colour or facial features can't be included with regular profiling. I mean, it's part of the makeup isn't it?
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.
I watch too much CNN.
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. I certainly don't mean most of the States at all. I'm talking about certain moments in a few places that make me wince. I've only been to Buffalo a few times for hockey games. But funny you should mention it, one time after the game, wandering down dark empty streets at midnight trying to find a bar a car came screeching toward us and jumped the sidewalk (coming to within a few feet of us) and the occupants (young males) started screaming and swearing at us. I think it was the Montreal Canadians shirt that one of us was wearing that ticked them off. ;D SInce we were on their turf, we did the smart thing and said absolutely nothing to them, just kept walking. Luckily, they tired of us and drove away! I guess the same thing could have happened in Toronto too. I could see Leaf fans being stupid.
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. I'm glad you're giving credit where credit is due. I understand you a little better.
That's the nature of imperfect mankind and how it practices religion, not something inherent to religion itself.
I'll have to differ with you on this point.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 23, 2007 16:14:18 GMT -4
My happiness, for example is the standard of the good.I'm not sure how to interpret that. If you're happiness includes compassion for others, responsibility for your actions, a quest for knowledge amongst other things then it could approach the standard of the good. But I think I'm not understanding this point. There is no good external to me that I am morally obligated to.Sounds selfish, but again there is probably more to this than I'm comprehending. I should have studied more philosophy perhaps. I find that as I get older, I also grow wiser and gain more knowledge about the world and its workings. I understand more than I did twenty years ago, and I care about things I didn't before. I am more compassionate and understanding and it's not because of self-interest that I've become this way. But you live your life and you determine what is important to you. 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.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you find so wrong about universal health care. Maybe start another thread? 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?Like I said, in Canada we feel it is our right to have universal health care, so my attitude could be perhaps tainted in your view by that . In some countries maybe that argument could be made. Not in mine. Probably not yours either. 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?The will of the majority is important, but must not be used to restrict the minority to second class status or slave status. All of society needs to be educated as much as possible to understand that everyone deserves equal treatment. I think that if there is an objective morality, then most religions don't in fact reveal it, but cloud it up. This is important. Instead of focusing on the morals themselves, they put much more emphasis on 'being saved', or worshipping God (s), or building temples or fighting Satan, or judging others who don't believe exactly the same etc. Note: I've always spelt 'worshipping' with two 'p' s, but SpellCheck says there is only one...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2007 17:01:04 GMT -4
Democracy is what we call it. I’m sorry it has lost favor with you. Democracy in its most absolute sense has never been in favor with me. Representative, Constitutionally-based Democracy with checks and balances to prevent the tyrany of the majority is a better system. Doubtless. My argument against universal health care at its most basic is that it doesn't work better than the system we have. The idea that we can't really afford it is in addition to that basic problem. Rather than wasting money on a system that won't work, it would be better to haul rising insurance costs under control by limiting punative damages and raising insurance deductibles so that consumers bear more of the costs themselves and as a result are a little more choosy about when and where they go to the doctor. I do beleive that it is a Christian duty to help the poor in as far as we can. But the best help is not to give them big government programs, but to help them until they can get back on their feet again and teach them what they need to support themselves. A full-fledged debate on health care is really a subject for another thread, and not really one I'm much interested in anyway.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 23, 2007 17:03:32 GMT -4
In one of the oddities of the language -- for two syllable words with the stress on the first syllable, the word only gets one consonant before "ing."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2007 17:17:24 GMT -4
Whether it (the Declaration of Independence) really is (objective truth) or not is another matter. Most people think that their subjective truths are in fact objective. You were saying that most governments never claimed to understand the mind of God and to be founded on objective truth. The Declaration of Independence makes both claims. And it's a document who's ideas changed the world. Probably. Where did modern democracy come from in the first place again? Because if anything we are over-sensative about race in the U.S. Lableing someone as a potential terror suspect because they have middle-eastern facial features or have a muslim name, though it might be sensible, can't officially be done. In fact, we'll feel guilty if we catch ourselves doing that personally. So instead we treat granny and junior just like we treat Mohammed. It's a matter of principle, and believing that race really doesn't matter. There's your problem right there. Did you expect not to encounter any drunk sore losers/winners at or around a hockey game? The residents of Buffalo are probably not at their best at such times. I encounter this fairly often - people that are sure that having chosen one religion means I must think all the others are not only incorrect on a few points but actively harmful (possibly even fronts for the devil himself), that no good can ever come of them, and that I am obligated to try to destroy and discredit them whenever I encounter them. Maybe some religious people really meet that stereotype, but not most Mormons. Well, since we see the same thing with governments, as you pointed out earlier, then it would seem obvious to me that it is an aspect of human nature to have high and low points, and periods of forgetfulness.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2007 17:24:25 GMT -4
There is no good external to me that I am morally obligated to.Sounds selfish, but again there is probably more to this than I'm comprehending. I should have studied more philosophy perhaps. It is an essentially selifsh viewpoint, but it might be the best you can manage in a subjective world. Without an objective good or evil it is very difficult to provide a logical argument for altruism. Can you prove any of that? In a world with no absolute good or evil what's wrong with relegating people to second-class status or slavery? When you say "everyone deserves equal treatment" that's really just your opinion, isn't it? I would agree that this is the case with some groups.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 23, 2007 19:17:26 GMT -4
Can you prove any of that? In a world with no absolute good or evil what's wrong with relegating people to second-class status or slavery? When you say "everyone deserves equal treatment" that's really just your opinion, isn't it? Can I prove what is morally true or not? Probably not. This is the answer I gave you earlier in this post:
Some people's opinions are important. Like Jesus's for starters. Or Gandhi etc. That's the obvious. Anyway, I know in my heart it is wrong and so do you. Do you need someone to tell you so? Can you think about this yourself and come to a conclusion?
Society progresses through the thoughts, actions and accumulated experience of its members. We see how our actions affect people, we feel pain, we see it in other people, we feel grief, we understand loneliness. We understand cause and effect, and remember our history. We experience love, jealousy and rebellion. We learn to grow and learn about people and the world we are in. We see ourselves reflected in fellow humans - the children, parents and grandparents that we love. We find death amidst our lives and hope and build for a better future. We analize the effects of nature and the universe, grasping what truth it may give us. We puzzle at the mysteries and seek to unravel them. We feel our heart beating and know that we are alive and thinking creatures. We form our rights and wrongs from without and within, by observing and commenting, by being both a student of the world and a teacher as well. Look into the eyes of the children when you beat them, see the pain of an animal while you kill it, see the landscape after you've raped it, feel the hopelessness of someone unjustly condemned, and the terror felt by victims of injustice. It may be subjective, but not on a whim! Unless someone is a rock, I don't see how over time we can't come to some general agreement on what is right and wrong, whether it is purely subjective or divinely inspired by an objectiive God, who knows - maybe even yours.
I've been searching for God ever since I stopped being a Catholic 35 years ago. But I can't help being cynical because that is the place my search has brought me so far. But along the way I learned about other people's beliefs and understood that a there is a different God for different people. I just found that I couldn't choose, and God hasn't chose me.
I don't know how else to put it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 23, 2007 22:03:12 GMT -4
Can I prove what is morally true or not? Probably not. This is the answer I gave you earlier in this post: ...Anyway, I know in my heart it is wrong and so do you. Do you need someone to tell you so? Can you think about this yourself and come to a conclusion? So we both believe in what I call "the Light of Christ" - an inherent moral sense. And you seem to be at least drifting towards the idea that people should come to the same conclusions of what is right and wrong when they really ponder how they feel about an issue. So perhaps you agree with me more than you originally thought you did.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 23, 2007 22:10:28 GMT -4
Well, maybe. But mainly I'm saying that I don't know of an objective truth, therefore I think it is subjective. I don't know there is a God, so I can't believe in him. Something like that. It's not entirely a clear issue for me.
|
|
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 24, 2007 6:56:18 GMT -4
Probably. Where did modern democracy come from in the first place again? For the fully participatory sense of the word, where all adult inhabitants have the vote: New Zealand. From which we can deduce that the meaning of life is somehow connected to Rugby Union Football and sheep. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 24, 2007 10:21:26 GMT -4
Sounds selfish...
It is, but not in the sense of being inconsiderate of others because that is detrimental to you in the long run.
I should have studied more philosophy perhaps.
You don't need to study philosophy to learn this. You already live this way. Consider a friendship. You help your friend move, and in the short term you enjoy his gratitude, you feel good about helping him, etc. In return, he loans you his pickup truck one day when you need it. The more each of you put into the friendship, the more you get out of it. Now there are two individuals each motivated to help the other. Each genuinely values, that is, gains value from, the other. It is a true bond of friendship.
Because you have to discover the value of others and of your actions, this is sometimes referred to as “enlightened self-interest.”
Now consider health care. Let's say consumer demand for health care rises and leads to a shortage of nurses. Consumer's act in their own interest by shopping for the lowest cost care available for a practical quality of care. Nurses in turn act in their own interest by tending to work at the hospitals and offices that pay the most.
In a market economy reasonably free of government control, this interaction between supply and demand leads to true market prices. A shortage of the supply nurses relative to the increased demand from consumers leads to a rise in nurse salaries as consumers, through the hospitals and medical offices, have to compete for scarce nurses. The higher wage acts as a signal to the workers to increase the number of nurses. People who have taken other jobs may switch back to nursing, some may come out of retirement, and some students will be motivated to study nursing. As more nurses enter the field and relieve the shortage, prices come back down to signal the market, “We have enough nurses now.” All this comes about because of individuals acting in their own self-interest.
In a universal health care system under heavy government control, there are no true market prices. There are prices, but they no longer reflect the interplay of supply and demand by those who provide the supply and those who provide the demand. It is up to the distant bureaucrats and even more remote voting public to obtain the relevant data, analyze it, and determine that there is a shortage of nurses. Because funds are finite, they need to figure out what resources to sacrifice in order to increase the supply of nurses. In a free market economy, on the other hand, consumers may hold off getting a big screen TV if health care is more important to them at the time.
The best evidence that markets really behave this way is to look at the long waiting lists in Canada to get various surgical procedures. A long wait is a sure sign that there is a shortage of supply relative to demand. Because the government interferes with prices and free action in the health care marketplace, market incentives cannot act to reallocate resources to better serve the needs of the consumers.
You make much of universal access to health care, but as one Canadian judge wrote, “access to a waiting list is not access to health care.”
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 24, 2007 11:13:52 GMT -4
Well, maybe. But mainly I'm saying that I don't know of an objective truth, therefore I think it is subjective. Which is the position pretty much everyone who thinks morality is subjective takes. Because they personally aren't convinced anything they know of is an honest-to-goodness objective truth they think nobody can know of such a thing. It's seems like a fairly logical position to take, and a pretty safe one too, but problems arise with that position when you continue to act as if there really is such a thing as right and wrong that doesn't depend on opinion, which most people still do. People still talk about what is fair and unfair, or what is in society's best interests as if there really were some objective scale to measure those things against. Why this human tendancy to talk about how things ought to be instead of how they seem to really be all around us? How do we get this sense of what should be fair or "perfect" if we never actually see it in the world around us? That's the path that started C.S. Lewis on his conversion from atheism to Christianity (as described in Mere Christianity). Nor is it for many people. But think for a moment, how many of the things you take for fact around you do you really know anyway? Do you really know from personal knowledge even such basic things as that the sun is going to come up tomorrow, or that the Earth is round? Do you know everything about how your car works, or your TV, or your cell phone, or your computer? No - in fact you take many, many things in your daily life essentially on faith, with as little true knowledge about how they come about as your knowledge of deity. And you don't have to know exactly how your computer was put together in order to use it and benefit from it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 24, 2007 11:14:22 GMT -4
We really should start another thread for the universal health care debate.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 24, 2007 14:41:07 GMT -4
People still talk about what is fair and unfair, or what is in society's best interests as if there really were some objective scale to measure those things against.
I introduced the issue of universal health care into the discussion not to debate public health care until the last man standing, winner take all, but to explore exactly what you mention here. I think the notions of subjective and objective are muddled because of philosophy. I suspected that in practice there was no effective difference between them.
|
|