Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The right to life shouldn't cover health care

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First off, I find the supposed "right to life" dubious to begin with.

I posit that even given the "right to life" freedom, health care should not be included in that provision. Health care is a service and has a limited resource pool. Any product of demand, be it ipads, iphones, apartments, or cars, are subject to the whims of the market. People who can't afford these things don't get them. I submit that the same type of mentality be applied to entry into Emergency rooms, hospitals, and all other forms of health care.

I am in no way arguing for the abolition of taxpayer funded social programs that provide healthcare, just the philosophical notion that health-care is a product and that people who get it for free have absolutely no just claim over it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:34:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
people who get it for free have absolutely no just claim over it.
Except taxpayers, who have every moral right to make use of services that they pay for. That being said, I think basic human rights are to have shelter, clothing, and food.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whether or not free health care is the "right thing" to do depends on whether it benefits society overall. Approximately 13% of the US is unemployed and can't afford health care. Even affluent people sometimes do not have enough money to cover all their health care costs. Insurance companies may not cover the cost of health care. This would lead to many people's health getting worse and their deaths. People dying is not beneficial to society overall so free health care is morally right since it benefits society.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:43:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Whether or not free health care is the "right thing" to do depends on whether it benefits society overall. Approximately 13% of the US is unemployed and can't afford health care. Even affluent people sometimes do not have enough money to cover all their health care costs. Insurance companies may not cover the cost of health care. This would lead to many people's health getting worse and their deaths. People dying is not beneficial to society overall so free health care is morally right since it benefits society.

Utilitarianism is better because it's utilitarian. Did you know that?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 6:57:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
First off, I find the supposed "right to life" dubious to begin with.

Sigh. These boring statements are just killing me. It's like, everyone open up their posts with some absurd claim that they consider infinitely profound, such as that the "right to life" is dubious.

I mean, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to be offensive or mean. :( But, it's how I feel.

Seriously, Kleptin, you're a better thinker than that. Rights are provisions protected for each individual by society as part of the incentive to remain a part of that society -- or, interchangeably, as a function of that society. Therefore, of course, it would be paramount to protect the very things that would maintain its designation as a society, which is something that comprises living people behaving cooperatively.

So, really, stop acting like you think it's totally cool to go stab someone in the eye for no reason, to eat their flesh, or to rape their children. Stop pretending as though, if you found out there were a serial killer living next door to you, you wouldn't tell on his ass quicker than he can finish a bowel movement and realize he's been caught.

Acting cooperatively is the only way we can maintain this concept we consider "a life," to which we dedicate our otherwise marginally problematic and largely privileged existence.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 7:02:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:43:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Utilitarianism is better because it's utilitarian. Did you know that?
Even from an utilitarian perspective, universal health care isn't necessarily the moral path to go. The possible harm to economy (thus people) should also be considered.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:57:51 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
First off, I find the supposed "right to life" dubious to begin with.

Sigh. These boring statements are just killing me. It's like, everyone open up their posts with some absurd claim that they consider infinitely profound, such as that the "right to life" is dubious.

I mean, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to be offensive or mean. :( But, it's how I feel.

Seriously, Kleptin, you're a better thinker than that. Rights are provisions protected for each individual by society as part of the incentive to remain a part of that society -- or, interchangeably, as a function of that society. Therefore, of course, it would be paramount to protect the very things that would maintain its designation as a society, which is something that comprises living people behaving cooperatively.

So, really, stop acting like you think it's totally cool to go stab someone in the eye for no reason, to eat their flesh, or to rape their children. Stop pretending as though, if you found out there were a serial killer living next door to you, you wouldn't tell on his ass quicker than he can finish a bowel movement and realize he's been caught.

Acting cooperatively is the only way we can maintain this concept we consider "a life," to which we dedicate our otherwise marginally problematic and largely privileged existence.

What I see here is a patronizing response to what you believe to be a reflection of what I said on my character.

What you should have been intelligent enough to see is that my character is not on trial, nor should that statement be assumed to represent my character, and simply that I was weeding out a possible side-branch of the discussion.

Leave the nonsense out of it Ren, and respond accordingly. Alternatively, let's start a topic on whether or not the right to life is legitimate. I promise you, I wouldn't argue something as absurd as "Let's go kill each other". I'm not an angsty teen and frankly, it's offensive that you took this approach to me.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:34:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
people who get it for free have absolutely no just claim over it.
Except taxpayers, who have every moral right to make use of services that they pay for. That being said, I think basic human rights are to have shelter, clothing, and food.

What do you think about the notion that the definition of "good" would be "Something that decreases everyone's tax burden" vs "evil" being "Something that increases everyone's tax burden"?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:28:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 6:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Whether or not free health care is the "right thing" to do depends on whether it benefits society overall. Approximately 13% of the US is unemployed and can't afford health care. Even affluent people sometimes do not have enough money to cover all their health care costs. Insurance companies may not cover the cost of health care. This would lead to many people's health getting worse and their deaths. People dying is not beneficial to society overall so free health care is morally right since it benefits society.

What would you say to the notion of quality vs quantity?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would say that all positive rights don't exist. Nobody has a right for something external to be provided for them, but they do have a right to what they possess.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:31:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:21:06 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 6:57:51 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
First off, I find the supposed "right to life" dubious to begin with.

Sigh. These boring statements are just killing me. It's like, everyone open up their posts with some absurd claim that they consider infinitely profound, such as that the "right to life" is dubious.

I mean, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm not trying to be offensive or mean. :( But, it's how I feel.

Seriously, Kleptin, you're a better thinker than that. Rights are provisions protected for each individual by society as part of the incentive to remain a part of that society -- or, interchangeably, as a function of that society. Therefore, of course, it would be paramount to protect the very things that would maintain its designation as a society, which is something that comprises living people behaving cooperatively.

So, really, stop acting like you think it's totally cool to go stab someone in the eye for no reason, to eat their flesh, or to rape their children. Stop pretending as though, if you found out there were a serial killer living next door to you, you wouldn't tell on his ass quicker than he can finish a bowel movement and realize he's been caught.

Acting cooperatively is the only way we can maintain this concept we consider "a life," to which we dedicate our otherwise marginally problematic and largely privileged existence.

What I see here is a patronizing response to what you believe to be a reflection of what I said on my character.

What you should have been intelligent enough to see is that my character is not on trial, nor should that statement be assumed to represent my character, and simply that I was weeding out a possible side-branch of the discussion.

Leave the nonsense out of it Ren, and respond accordingly. Alternatively, let's start a topic on whether or not the right to life is legitimate. I promise you, I wouldn't argue something as absurd as "Let's go kill each other". I'm not an angsty teen and frankly, it's offensive that you took this approach to me.

Nonono, I'm not calling your character under question. Your character is irrelevant. But, that's the point. ;) And, hopefully, by the end, you'll see why.

All I'm saying is that, well, I just can't take that position seriously, inasmuch as people seem to simply dismiss my assertion that morality is objective.

I mean, yeah, I wasn't all hugging you and holding your hand while politely indicating that it's bullshit to assert that there is no objective "should," including for murder.

You know why?

Because, your contention with my response is literally due to the fact that we are both engaging this conversation as though there is an objective way one should go about it. Moreover, there are general behaviors that mean objective things. These facts are what give the conversation shape and meaning, so that you can glean distaste from the way I've chosen to admonish your statements.

Moreover, you can reference the parameters of this conversation, which was not designated by anything stated or written, but still objectively holds true; such as that your persona and how it comes off to me is irrelevant.

And here, you see, hopefully, how your reaction illustrates how morality is indeed objective, leading all the way back to how we should coexist.

But, apparently, that's now for a different thread...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:37:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:22:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 6:34:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
people who get it for free have absolutely no just claim over it.
Except taxpayers, who have every moral right to make use of services that they pay for. That being said, I think basic human rights are to have shelter, clothing, and food.

What do you think about the notion that the definition of "good" would be "Something that decreases everyone's tax burden" vs "evil" being "Something that increases everyone's tax burden"?
Generally, I would agree. (More correctly stated: something that decreases everyone's tax burden falls under the definition of good, and vice versa.) The more economic freedom, the better off a society is. This includes the poor.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:41:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:37:14 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:22:41 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 6:34:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/21/2012 5:58:33 PM, Kleptin wrote:
people who get it for free have absolutely no just claim over it.
Except taxpayers, who have every moral right to make use of services that they pay for. That being said, I think basic human rights are to have shelter, clothing, and food.

What do you think about the notion that the definition of "good" would be "Something that decreases everyone's tax burden" vs "evil" being "Something that increases everyone's tax burden"?
Generally, I would agree. (More correctly stated: something that decreases everyone's tax burden falls under the definition of good, and vice versa.) The more economic freedom, the better off a society is. This includes the poor.

Those blanketed statements... you should always second-guess them.

Under that definition, education is unequivocally bad/evil.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:42:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:41:20 AM, Ren wrote:
Those blanketed statements... you should always second-guess them.

Under that definition, education is unequivocally bad/evil.
Nope, but compulsory education is :)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 11:51:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:12:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
I would say that all positive rights don't exist. Nobody has a right for something external to be provided for them, but they do have a right to what they possess.

Why? [Just wondering what your answer would be.]
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 11:51:41 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:12:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
I would say that all positive rights don't exist. Nobody has a right for something external to be provided for them, but they do have a right to what they possess.

Why? [Just wondering what your answer would be.]

Or better yet, what determines possession? Does a person really own anything, even his own life?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 11:51:41 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:12:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
I would say that all positive rights don't exist. Nobody has a right for something external to be provided for them, but they do have a right to what they possess.

Why? [Just wondering what your answer would be.]

It's noncontradictory, and ensures that, if one is stranded on a desert island, nobody is violating one's rights. It doesn't make sense to me to have a right to something that somebody else would have to give you. It also doesn't make sense to have a right for something to be provided to you that previously did not exist, like the internet. Would this mean that their rights were being violated for thousands of years? I don't believe that rights can be a function based in any way on time; they must be a constant.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:21:30 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/24/2012 11:51:41 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:12:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
I would say that all positive rights don't exist. Nobody has a right for something external to be provided for them, but they do have a right to what they possess.

Why? [Just wondering what your answer would be.]

Or better yet, what determines possession? Does a person really own anything, even his own life?

It would have to be based on a homestead principle of some sort for it to mean anything. One possesses one's own property, through thats essentially a tautalogy. It's hard to philosophically deal with a lack of right to life. If one doesn't have a right to life, then one can't have a right to anything, because a lack of life would make anything else impossible. The alternative would have to be that their are no rights, or "might is right." Really, that's what a lack of possession would do as well. It's more or less self-evident, as far as I can tell.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That was probably worded a little stupidly of me...

I meant to ask whether or not it is alright to say that we *own* our lives, given that our very existence is dependent on the work of so many other people before us.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 6:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 6:13:16 PM, Kleptin wrote:
That was probably worded a little stupidly of me...

I meant to ask whether or not it is alright to say that we *own* our lives, given that our very existence is dependent on the work of so many other people before us.

I would say it is, because once we do exist we must own our own lives. The other alternative would be that people are the property of their parents, which would be slavery. In creating you, they must give you self-ownership. Does this make sense with what you're trying to ask?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.