Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Healthcare a Right?

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

that does not follow. Right to life means that nobody is allowed to kill you, a negative right, not that your life must be subsidized.

Based on that logic, anything that can increase my life expectancy should be a right.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:43:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:41:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

that does not follow. Right to life means that nobody is allowed to kill you, a negative right, not that your life must be subsidized.

Based on that logic, anything that can increase my life expectancy should be a right.

Rights don't have any rational justification beyond what we desire. Anything the public feels is necessary can be ingrained into the moral conditioning.

If we feel that we need healthcare,...then we deserve healthcare.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:43:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:41:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

that does not follow. Right to life means that nobody is allowed to kill you, a negative right, not that your life must be subsidized.

Based on that logic, anything that can increase my life expectancy should be a right.

Rights don't have any rational justification beyond what we desire. Anything the public feels is necessary can be ingrained into the moral conditioning.

If we feel that we need healthcare,...then we deserve healthcare.

Ad populum and Is/Ought fallacy.

Just because the public wants something, does not morally justify that to be correct. For example, the public wanted the lynching of blacks during the Jim Crow laws. That does not make it morally justified.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:44:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:41:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

that does not follow. Right to life means that nobody is allowed to kill you, a negative right, not that your life must be subsidized.

Based on that logic, anything that can increase my life expectancy should be a right.

Rights don't have any rational justification beyond what we desire. Anything the public feels is necessary can be ingrained into the moral conditioning.

If we feel that we need healthcare,...then we deserve healthcare.

Ad populum and Is/Ought fallacy.

Just because the public wants something, does not morally justify that to be correct. For example, the public wanted the lynching of blacks during the Jim Crow laws. That does not make it morally justified.

You're missing my point.

Objective Morality is nonsense. You can't justify it at all using logic. So what we think is objective morality is really subjective morality.

And with objectivity taken out of the equation we can call anything we want a "moral right"....which is kind of what we do anyway, already.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:47:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:44:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:41:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

that does not follow. Right to life means that nobody is allowed to kill you, a negative right, not that your life must be subsidized.

Based on that logic, anything that can increase my life expectancy should be a right.

Rights don't have any rational justification beyond what we desire. Anything the public feels is necessary can be ingrained into the moral conditioning.

If we feel that we need healthcare,...then we deserve healthcare.

Ad populum and Is/Ought fallacy.

Just because the public wants something, does not morally justify that to be correct. For example, the public wanted the lynching of blacks during the Jim Crow laws. That does not make it morally justified.

You're missing my point.

Objective Morality is nonsense. You can't justify it at all using logic. So what we think is objective morality is really subjective morality.

And with objectivity taken out of the equation we can call anything we want a "moral right"....which is kind of what we do anyway, already.

Sure, you can call anything a right. But you have to justify that right without using any logical fallacies (Ad Populum or Is/Ought), which you are failing to do.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

You have a very annoying method of argumentation. Your idea seems to be "belittle your opponent as much as possible,...maybe then you'll seem right". No.

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. There is no such thing as an objective right. There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality revolves around our collective desires. If healthcare matches that desire, we can easily assume it as a "right" and make it part of the social conditioning that produces your average joe....and just like that, healthcare's a right.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:07:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

But does the right to life require that others may not do you harm through inaction? What if a man who, for any reason, is suffering could be helped by another man's action, and the second man knows this and does nothing. Is he not harming the first man through inaction, and could the same situation not apply to healthcare? And if the man dies as a result, would that not qualify as negligent manslaughter?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement?

Exactly, the notion of "rights" are nothing but abstract thoughts. A "right" is nothing more than what a prime authority says it is.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:07:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

But does the right to life require that others may not do you harm through inaction? What if a man who, for any reason, is suffering could be helped by another man's action, and the second man knows this and does nothing. Is he not harming the first man through inaction, and could the same situation not apply to healthcare? And if the man dies as a result, would that not qualify as negligent manslaughter?

Just because somebody can help, does not justify them to help. You are employing a very utilitarianistic method of sacrificing oneself for the good of others.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Furthermore, if you are taking the moral relativist approach, then it is good to know that our modern society operates on a Judeo-Chrsitian objective moral standard.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

Depends on what you mean by healthcare.... If you mean health insurance than no, if you mean having a doctor treat you than yes. In regards to having a doctor treat you, it's your right to receive service but it is the doctor's right to receive compensation. That is you have a right to receive care if you can provide compensation for that care. If a doctor is willing to give you free care out of charity than you can go there.
I went to a doctor who would not take medicaid; when I could not afford to continue seeing him he decided to see me for free. I went to him for free for years. He was a great doctor, when I moved I had to start seeing doctors who accept medicaid; medicaid doctors suck, I prefer my old doctor, he was a specialist who was renowned in his field.

The government should not dabble health insurance, nor should they dabble in medical care. Tax payer funded medicine violates the rights of tax payers who do not use the government service. In addition, the government is extremely incompetent.

The thing people who advocate more government does not realize, is that even if you trust the current policy makers, that does not mean you can trust future policy makers. If someone advocates government run healthcare because current policy makers sound like they have a good plan, does not mean future policy makers won't try to "improve" that plan, and f*** things up. Just because you trust one president to assassinate US citizens without trial for terrorism, does not mean the next president won't use that power grab to assassinate US citizens for other reasons. By establishing that power grab you open the door for others to use it; that's why it's best to have a limited government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

We just gave it to ourselves, as with all rights.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:51:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

You have a very annoying method of argumentation. Your idea seems to be "belittle your opponent as much as possible,...maybe then you'll seem right". No.

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. There is no such thing as an objective right. There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality revolves around our collective desires. If healthcare matches that desire, we can easily assume it as a "right" and make it part of the social conditioning that produces your average joe....and just like that, healthcare's a right.

I'm a moral nihilist as well. Well your more of a moral subjectivist. I also don't understand how you can make such moral judgements on others If you don't even believe in objective morality as well.

You stated that If one has the right to life then one also has the right to healthcare.

That doesn't follow.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 7:55:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:49:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

We just gave it to ourselves, as with all legal rights.

fixed.... Healthcare is a legal right, depending on the country; this is a international forum so I'm assuming we are talking of natural rights, not legal rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:55:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:49:40 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

We just gave it to ourselves, as with all legal rights.

fixed.... Healthcare is a legal right, depending on the country; this is a international forum so I'm assuming we are talking of natural rights, not legal rights.

What's the difference?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:52:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:51:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

You have a very annoying method of argumentation. Your idea seems to be "belittle your opponent as much as possible,...maybe then you'll seem right". No.

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. There is no such thing as an objective right. There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality revolves around our collective desires. If healthcare matches that desire, we can easily assume it as a "right" and make it part of the social conditioning that produces your average joe....and just like that, healthcare's a right.

I'm a moral nihilist as well. Well your more of a moral subjectivist. I also don't understand how you can make such moral judgements on others If you don't even believe in objective morality as well.

You stated that If one has the right to life then one also has the right to healthcare.

That doesn't follow.

We can have a right to anything we want. Rights are collective entitlements that we create for ourselves. If mankind was less selfish and greedy, we'd also have a right to food, shelter, and healthcare.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:07:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

But does the right to life require that others may not do you harm through inaction? What if a man who, for any reason, is suffering could be helped by another man's action, and the second man knows this and does nothing. Is he not harming the first man through inaction, and could the same situation not apply to healthcare? And if the man dies as a result, would that not qualify as negligent manslaughter?

Just because somebody can help, does not justify them to help. You are employing a very utilitarianistic method of sacrificing oneself for the good of others.

Sacrificing one's self? More like inconveniencing. My point is that inaction can result in violation of rights as well.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 8:29:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 7:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Furthermore, if you are taking the moral relativist approach, then it is good to know that our modern society operates on a Judeo-Chrsitian objective moral standard.

Nobody needs religion to define their morals. I personally feel that certain measures should be taken to help others.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:07:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:22:03 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:07:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

But does the right to life require that others may not do you harm through inaction? What if a man who, for any reason, is suffering could be helped by another man's action, and the second man knows this and does nothing. Is he not harming the first man through inaction, and could the same situation not apply to healthcare? And if the man dies as a result, would that not qualify as negligent manslaughter?

Just because somebody can help, does not justify them to help. You are employing a very utilitarianistic method of sacrificing oneself for the good of others.

Sacrificing one's self? More like inconveniencing. My point is that inaction can result in violation of rights as well.

If the patient can't pay for healthcare, then somebody has to pay. Nothing is free. That somebody is the taxpayer (you).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 9:07:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 8:29:45 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Furthermore, if you are taking the moral relativist approach, then it is good to know that our modern society operates on a Judeo-Chrsitian objective moral standard.

Nobody needs religion to define their morals. I personally feel that certain measures should be taken to help others.

Society disagrees.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

That is almost hilarious to read.

Who gives a sh!t if it is a right?

As a society, we get to decide what we want to do. If we decide, as a society, that health care is something we want to provide to everyone, then let it be done.
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:15:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:13:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

That is almost hilarious to read.

Who gives a sh!t if it is a right?

As a society, we get to decide what we want to do. If we decide, as a society, that health care is something we want to provide to everyone, then let it be done.

this.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 11:13:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

That is almost hilarious to read.

Who gives a sh!t if it is a right?

As a society, we get to decide what we want to do. If we decide, as a society, that health care is something we want to provide to everyone, then let it be done.

I'm assuming that's not a justification, just a description of what happens. Otherwise...

As a society, we get to decide what we want to do. If we decide, as a society, that terrible atrocities are actually okay against brown people, then let it be done.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 11:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 9:07:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 8:22:03 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 7:07:47 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:46:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:43:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:42:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:39:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/30/2012 6:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Simple enough question.

Legally or culturally, it is no way a right.

Morally, to justify it being a right quickly leads to a correct slippery slope (Justice Scalia-Brocolli argument).

So...How do you justify healthcare as a right?

What is a right but a glorified entitlement? If we have the right to live then we have the right to affordable care.

If we have the right to live, then do we have the right to food? Shelter?

yes.

I'm not sure you know what the right to life means.

The right to life means that no other entity can take away your right without Due Process. It is a negative right, in the sense that it obliges inaction. The right to life does not guarantee anything past that. Anything that improves your quality of life and prolongs your life is not a right, but a commodity.

But does the right to life require that others may not do you harm through inaction? What if a man who, for any reason, is suffering could be helped by another man's action, and the second man knows this and does nothing. Is he not harming the first man through inaction, and could the same situation not apply to healthcare? And if the man dies as a result, would that not qualify as negligent manslaughter?

Just because somebody can help, does not justify them to help. You are employing a very utilitarianistic method of sacrificing oneself for the good of others.

Sacrificing one's self? More like inconveniencing. My point is that inaction can result in violation of rights as well.

If the patient can't pay for healthcare, then somebody has to pay. Nothing is free. That somebody is the taxpayer (you).

Exactly, and that's fine by me. You see the poor as leeches upon society, I see them a people who, due to their own mistakes or otherwise, are needy and should be helped. That's what it all comes down to.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK