Should we have single-payer healthcare?

[johnfree7]

[QUOTE="coldcase331, post: 17611658, member: 673952"
]That's not your call to make, many people who reach that level of income had to put in years of hard work either through climbing the corporate ladder, or invest a lot of money to fund education or build a business. Those in that income bracket already contribute 30%, AND taxes from investments on top of that. Then let's not forget state and SS, etc. taxes on top of that as well


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app[/QUOTE]

It's time to look at countries with successful healthcare models like Germany and Canada and stop with our twisted priorities.. . Sickness funds in Germany are financed through a payroll tax which averages 15% (but varies depending on the fund chosen). The tax is split between the employer and employee. Not a bad starting point.

We have the best paid doctors in the world, the best paid insurance companies, and the best paid pharmaceutical companies. Great. That doesn't mean 319 million Americans are better served by our system than Germanys.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[coldcase331]

It's time to look at countries with successful healthcare models like Germany and Canada and stop with our twisted priorities.. . Sickness funds in Germany are financed through a payroll tax which averages 15% (but varies depending on the fund chosen). The tax is split between the employer and employee. Not a bad starting point.

I've literally said that Germany is a good idea if you've actually read the whole thread. The difference here is that Germany's model doesn't involve a redistribution of wealth. I could also opt out and not contribute at all to the public program if I wanted private insurance. Key difference being this is a choice, what everyone else is proposing here is force


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[johnfree7]

I've literally said that Germany is a good idea if you've actually read the whole thread. The difference here is that Germany's model doesn't involve a redistribution of wealth. I could also opt out and not contribute at all to the public program if I wanted private insurance. Key difference being this is a choice, what everyone else is proposing here is force


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Then we are in agreement. If I was the Secretary of Health and Human Services I'd take a serious look at Germany's healthcare system and work to emulate many aspects of it.

 

[Mad Jack]

So you have the well-off who make 200k or more contribute a little more taxes. They can afford it.

If you're a thief, and you see two guys whose wallets you can steal, one of whom is wealthy, one of whom is poor, and you choose to steal from the wealthier one because he'll miss it less and you can get more out of him, you're still a thief.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's time to look at countries with successful healthcare models like Germany and Canada and stop with our twisted priorities.. . Sickness funds in Germany are financed through a payroll tax which averages 15% (but varies depending on the fund chosen). The tax is split between the employer and employee. Not a bad starting point.

We have the best paid doctors in the world, the best paid insurance companies, and the best paid pharmaceutical companies. Great. That doesn't mean 319 million Americans are better served by our system than Germanys.

It also doesn't mean that the care we provide to the insured is worse than Germany's. More access does not equal better quality.

 

[johnfree7]

It also doesn't mean that the care we provide to the insured is worse than Germany's. More access does not equal better quality.

A doctor's role in society is not the same as a restaurant owner or bankers. His job isn't to maximize his material possessions and wealth by providing exceptional quality of care to the wealthy and inferior or non-existent care to everyone else.

He has undertaken a special commitment to serve his community. His career is service-based. The greater community has a fundamental right to his services. That doesn't mean he works for nothing, he should be fairly compensated for his work.

A system like Germany's doesn't involve a redistribution of wealth, and the doctor is free to choose private practice with the entire German population better served by his services, the privileged can opt for private care if they want, and the middle and lower classes receive adequate care by the public system. Best of both worlds.

 

[Mad Jack]

A doctor's role in society is not the same as a restaurant owner or bankers. His job isn't to maximize his material possessions and wealth by providing exceptional quality of care to the wealthy and inferior or non-existent care to everyone else.

He has undertaken a special commitment to serve his community. His career is service-based. The greater community has a fundamental right to his services. That doesn't mean he works for nothing, he should be fairly compensated for his work.

A system like Germany's doesn't involve a redistribution of wealth, and the doctor is free to choose private practice with the entire German population better served by his services, the privileged can opt for private care if they want, and the middle and lower classes receive adequate care by the public system. Best of both worlds.

You're mixing things up, quite a bit. The community does not have a "right" to a physician's services. I can, for instance, fire any patient that comes my way. It's fully allowed- they have no more right to see me than they have a right to see a plumber or anyone else. What we have is a responsibility to do good by our patients- those that we have chosen to work with, we serve objectively and in good faith, as is the duty of a professional. As to our duty to our community, that duty is one that we undertake voluntarily by providing free or discounted care of our own volition, not via government intervention. When you force someone to do good, they are no longer do good, they are doing what is required of them.

Finally, you never answered my question after multiple requests: How can patients have a right to the services of an individual that refuses to provide such services voluntarily?

 

[johnfree7]

Finally, you never answered my question after multiple requests: How can patients have a right to the services of an individual that refuses to provide such services voluntarily?

Why can't a racist teacher in 8th grade voluntarily dismiss poor black and hispanic students in a public school? He voluntarily wants to teach upper-class white students.

How can students have a right to the services of an individual that refuses to provide such services voluntarily?

 

[coldcase331]

Why can't a racist teacher in 8th grade voluntarily dismiss poor black and hispanic students in a public school?

How can students have a right to the services of an individual that refuses to provide such services voluntarily?

Those aren't two comparable scenarios. The one mad jack is talking about is one about equality of service. Doctors will provide service, patient pays service. Forcing doctors to provide services with minimal compensation compared to other patients without any recourse is wrong. It's not just a "I don't wanna" attitude like you're implying with the comparison


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[johnfree7]

Those aren't two comparable scenarios. The one mad jack is talking about is one about equality of service. Doctors will provide service, patient pays service. Forcing doctors to provide services with minimal compensation compared to other patients without any recourse is wrong. It's not just a "I don't wanna" attitude like you're implying with the comparison


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

You just agreed with me the German healthcare system is worth taking a serious look at. Doctors can choose to opt for private care without a redistribution of wealth with the entire population of Germany better served.

I didn't say doctors should be forced into service with minimal compensation, the German system, again is the best of both worlds.

As to the comparison, most of us would agree that education is an essential right (at least through highschool), which permits each person to receive instruction and to blossom socially. The right to an education is vital for the economic, social and cultural development of all societies. Newton was born to a relatively poor family but had access through his right to education. What makes healthcare different?

 

[Mad Jack]

Why can't a racist teacher in 8th grade voluntarily dismiss poor black and hispanic students in a public school? He voluntarily wants to teach upper-class white students.

How can students have a right to the services of an individual that refuses to provide such services voluntarily?

School teachers are employees by definition, and public school teachers are furthermore employees of the state. Unlike true professionals (historically, there are only two true professions, those being medicine and law, with engineers possibly qualifying in some contexts), primary and secondary school teachers lack self-direction in their work. You should read up on his professions historically came to be and what they represent- physicians are traditionally independent businessmen that trade skills for renumeration, with the freedom to choose their clients and the responsibility of serving those clients they choose to serve objectively and to the best of their ability. They were never viewed as public servants, and even so far back as ancient China (in which a physician required that anyone wishing to use their services must plant a fruit-beating tree upon their property), physicians have been in control of how, when, and where to utilize their services. The push to make physicians servants of the public is a very new phenomenon that wasn't really a thing until the founding of the Soviet Union. Only today have people decided to push what was once an autonomous owner of business and provider of services into being an employee under control of the government and serving the will of a public that has a poor understanding of what, exactly, he does.

Now, teachers can't fire their kids because they are employees that follow the rules of employers, who, more often than not, are the government and do not allow such a practice to occur. In regard to firing a student or patient because of their race, that is racial discrimination, and illegal for both physicians and teachers to practice. A school can, however, refuse to see a child because they do not reside within their district and thus do not pay taxes there, or a private school can refuse a student because they have not paid tuition. I'm free to not see those that do not pay me what my services are worth, as is the right of a member of a profession.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

You already know my positions here. The seizing is justified when it will bring about a net gain in community health and happiness. Whether that means taxing billionaires at 2% or 90% the logic remains the same - feeding, teaching, healing the poor is morally better when it is reallocating excess.

We can just skip to the end where I say stealing from a feast to save a starving person is morally right and you say it's morally wrong. Neither of us is going to change our ideas about the intrinsic worth of property rights vs human health and happiness.

So who are you to define what is excess that is ok to redistribute? Why should someone that is successful be forced to pay for the lazy millenial that majored in something useless that can't find a job that they deem worthy of them? Why should I have to subsidize them? How much should you be taking from me to do that? And do realize that it is being taken with the threat of force behind it.

 

[Mad Jack]

You just agreed with me the German healthcare system is worth taking a serious look at. Doctors can choose to opt for private care without a redistribution of wealth with the entire population of Germany better served.

I didn't say doctors should be forced into service with minimal compensation, the German system, again is the best of both worlds.

As to the comparison, most of us would agree that education is an essential right (at least through highschool), which permits each person to receive instruction and to blossom socially. The right to an education is vital for the economic, social and cultural development of all societies. Newton was born to a relatively poor family but had access through his right to education. What makes healthcare different?

As I've said, I would be fine with a two-tier system with NPs, PAs, and whatever physicians were willing to serve the general public existing alongside a private option. But there's a saying that goes something along the lines of, "one should never trust a man who is foolish enough to not charge what he's worth."

 

[johnfree7]

As I've said, I would be fine with a two-tier system with NPs, PAs, and whatever physicians were willing to serve the general public existing alongside a private option. But there's a saying that goes something along the lines of, "one should never trust a man who is foolish enough to not charge what he's worth."

I agree except for the last quote. Why not elevate the rights/privelege of Nurse Practitioners and PAs to the role of primary care clinician in needy areas, especially with low-income populations who could better be served by a public system. With the increasing shortage of doctors this seems prudent.

 

[coldcase331]

I agree except for the last quote. Why not elevate the rights/privelege of Nurse Practitioners and PAs to the role of primary care clinician in needy areas, especially with low-income populations who could better be served by a public system. With the increasing shortage of doctors this seems prudent.

But that comes at the cost of lower level of care. I would be ok with this proposition, but people need to understand that getting care from PA/NP will not always be equivalent of a service from an MD/DO

 

[deleted480308]

I agree except for the last quote. Why not elevate the rights/privelege of Nurse Practitioners and PAs to the role of primary care clinician in needy areas, especially with low-income populations who could better be served by a public system. With the increasing shortage of doctors this seems prudent.

Because they aren't as good as physicians at being physicians

 

[johnfree7]

Because they aren't as good as physicians at being physicians

Better to have a qualified healthcare professional see you (without as much training as a physician) than no one at all.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I agree except for the last quote. Why not elevate the rights/privelege of Nurse Practitioners and PAs to the role of primary care clinician in needy areas, especially with low-income populations who could better be served by a public system. With the increasing shortage of doctors this seems prudent.

Because PAs and NPs don't want to work with that population anymore than most physicians. If you look at what jobs NPs and PAs are taking, its not primary care and its sure as hell not underserved primary care. Just like MDs, they follow the money/lifestyle.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Better to have a qualified healthcare professional see you (without as much training as a physician) than no one at all.

Yeah, that's not always true - not even close.

 

[johnfree7]

Because PAs and NPs don't want to work with that population anymore than most physicians. If you look at what jobs NPs and PAs are taking, its not primary care and its sure as hell not underserved primary care. Just like MDs, they follow the money/lifestyle.

I've known teachers who go to poor areas in the inner-city because they feel inspired to make a difference; they certainly aren't well-compensated for it. There are also doctors who take on more medicare patients than others, simply because they feel compelled to.

With a shortage of doctors, especially in primary care, the best way to provide affordable access to poor/low income/rural areas is to allow Nurse Practitioners and PAs to provide voluntary basic primary care ; subsidized by a public system.

Hell you can put up a massive red sign that says "NPs and PAs are NOT doctors, but we are happy to see you!" As long as patients are aware of it, let them get a physical for God's sake.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I've known teachers who go to poor areas in the inner-city because they feel inspired to make a difference; they certainly aren't well-compensated for it. There are also doctors who take on more medicare patients than others, simply because they feel compelled to.

With a shortage of doctors, especially in primary care, the best way to provide affordable access to poor/low income/rural areas is to allow Nurse Practitioners and PAs to provide basic primary care to them if they want; subsidized by a public system.

Hell you can put up a massive red sign that says "NPs and PAs are NOT doctors, but we are happy to see you!" If patients are aware of it, let them get a physical for God's sake.

Your reading comprehension isn't so good, is it? I'm not saying that literally no one wants to go work with these populations, but not enough people do. If you gave NPs free reign tomorrow, that would not fix the problem. They, like most (keyword here: most, not all) medical students, want better paying jobs and generally speaking want to specialize. To use your example: most teachers want to work in the "good" schools. Are there some who want to go to the inner city districts and try to help? Of course. Are there enough that want to do that to get good quality teachers in all the "bad" schools? No. Medicine is no different.

And no, the best way is to incentivize doctors to work in these areas. That already exists somewhat - rural loan repayment is a big thing in residencies these days. 50% of my residency class is currently in low-income rural locations, all for the loan repayment benefits. The pay is higher and they end up getting an additional 50k in loan repayment per year they work in these places. Cost of living is also lower so the higher salary goes even further. Even the guy with 350k in loans plans to have his paid off in 4 years while still having about 3-4X his residency take home pay. This sort of thing will get more popular as loans keep getting bigger.

 

[efle]

So who are you to define what is excess that is ok to redistribute?

Oh, lets say excess = most of what you earn past the first million? Or if you meant this rhetorically, I'm not supposed to be some authority figure to anyone. I can give my views, but would hope people can see for themselves why it would be morally right to save a starving man by stealing from a feast.

Why should someone that is successful be forced to pay for the lazy millenial that majored in something useless that can't find a job that they deem worthy of them? Why should I have to subsidize them?

If you read the earlier pages, I am fine with only funding college for some people and productive majors more than useless ones. I agree it would be a bad idea to give every other student an education in psych and english literature at taxpayer expense.

Why should you be forced to pay for a new home of care for an abused child? Or are you like sb and believe humanity's dark history is all behind us now, and we can assume charitable giving would arise to replace all the lost tax funded services?

And do realize that it is being taken with the threat of force behind it.

Being told you can't torture dogs to death for fun is a restriction to your freedoms delivered with threat of force as well. History is full of of forcing people to do the right thing.

 

[deleted480308]

I've known teachers who go to poor areas in the inner-city because they feel inspired to make a difference; they certainly aren't well-compensated for it. There are also doctors who take on more medicare patients than others, simply because they feel compelled to.

With a shortage of doctors, especially in primary care, the best way to provide affordable access to poor/low income/rural areas is to allow Nurse Practitioners and PAs to provide basic primary care to them if they want; subsidized by a public system.

Hell you can put up a massive red sign that says "NPs and PAs are NOT doctors, but we are happy to see you!" If patients are aware of it, let them get a physical for God's sake.

Dump the subsidy and I'm on board even though they aren't as good and some of their patients will have bad outcomes.

I'm willing to line up my skills against theirs and compete in the market (assuming the nurses don't pull an oregon bait/switch and thrn demand equal pay) but you don't get to take 30% of my income to pay them.

 

[Mad Jack]

Better to have a qualified healthcare professional see you (without as much training as a physician) than no one at all.

No healthcare just leaves you at square one. Bad healthcare can kill you.

 

[Mad Jack]

I've known teachers who go to poor areas in the inner-city because they feel inspired to make a difference; they certainly aren't well-compensated for it. There are also doctors who take on more medicare patients than others, simply because they feel compelled to.

With a shortage of doctors, especially in primary care, the best way to provide affordable access to poor/low income/rural areas is to allow Nurse Practitioners and PAs to provide voluntary basic primary care ; subsidized by a public system.

Hell you can put up a massive red sign that says "NPs and PAs are NOT doctors, but we are happy to see you!" As long as patients are aware of it, let them get a physical for God's sake.

But clearly, the majority of providers aren't all about "feel(ing) inspired to make a difference" or there would be no health disparities, just as the majority of teachers aren't stopping educational disparities. We want to make a difference in the lives of others and for our own families, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think we've got the right balance.

As to PAs and NPs seeing patients- that's fine. Though I would like there to be studies done beforehand that are objective so that patients can be informed as to what, exactly, they're getting with a PA or an NP versus a physician.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh, lets say excess = most of what you earn past the first million? Or if you meant this rhetorically, I'm not supposed to be some authority figure to anyone. I can give my views, but would hope people can see for themselves why it would be morally right to save a starving man by stealing from a feast.


If you read the earlier pages, I am fine with only funding college for some people and productive majors more than useless ones. I agree it would be a bad idea to give every other student an education in psych and english literature at taxpayer expense.

Why should you be forced to pay for a new home of care for an abused child? Or are you like sb and believe humanity's dark history is all behind us now, and we can assume charitable giving would arise to replace all the lost tax funded services?


Being told you can't torture dogs to death for fun is a restriction to your freedoms delivered with threat of force as well. History is full of of forcing people to do the right thing.

You've got a couple things wrong here. First off- it would be morally right for me to voluntarily give a man food from my table if he were starving and I had plenty. It would not be morally right for the government to break into my home, take the food, and give it to him. That's the problem with government intervention in regard to these matters- it turns something that should be inherently moral into something that is inherently immoral. There's a big difference between taking care of your fellow man out of the goodness of your heart, and being forced to take care of your fellow man or else.

As to restrictions to freedoms such as the one you have pointed out, that is because of negative rights that people inherently possess. Animals, despite not being people, have a negative right to not be tortured. Other people have the negative right to not be victims of assault, rape, or murder. Freedom only exists in the context of rights- without assured rights, there is no freedom, as might becomes right and those with the power of force determine what can be done with society (exactly as has been done with many things in our society, which is the inherent problem with many of the liberal arguments in this thread- they assert positive rights where none exist, and infringe upon the negative rights inherent to all human beings).

 

[efle]

You've got a couple things wrong here. First off- it would be morally right for me to voluntarily give a man food from my table if he were starving and I had plenty. It would not be morally right for the government to break into my home, take the food, and give it to him. That's the problem with government intervention in regard to these matters- it turns something that should be inherently moral into something that is inherently immoral. There's a big difference between taking care of your fellow man out of the goodness of your heart, and being forced to take care of your fellow man or else.

As to restrictions to freedoms such as the one you have pointed out, that is because of negative rights that people inherently possess. Animals, despite not being people, have a negative right to not be tortured. Other people have the negative right to not be victims of assault, rape, or murder. Freedom only exists in the context of rights- without assured rights, there is no freedom, as might becomes right and those with the power of force determine what can be done with society (exactly as has been done with many things in our society, which is the inherent problem with many of the liberal arguments in this thread- they assert positive rights where none exist, and infringe upon the negative rights inherent to all human beings).

I'm not wrong, we just differ in axiology. I do think the theft can be morally justified AND ALSO be a rights violation. The concept of rights is in my view a means to an end, not the actual item of intrinsic worth. If you could divert a trolly to kill one man instead of five, would you? Drone strike a meeting of genocide or terrorist leadership knowing a civilian captive might be present at the compound? There are clearly cases when even respect for negative rights fails to come out on top (to me).

You can pretty easily find other examples that challenge the idea of right/wrong being about rights violations. If I see a man get stabbed and the assailant runs off, it is right to call an ambulance, and wrong to walk away letting him bleed to death. This right/wrong scenario can't be derived from a system of logic where good is synonymous with respecting negative rights. Yet we (mostly) all agree intuitively with the moral judgement above, because the goodness or badness centers on saving his life, not on whether I've violated his rights.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not wrong, we just differ in axiology. I do think the theft can be morally justified AND ALSO be a rights violation. The concept of rights is in my view a means to an end, not the actual item of intrinsic worth. If you could divert a trolly to kill one man instead of five, would you? Drone strike a meeting of genocide or terrorist leadership knowing a civilian captive might be present at the compound? There are clearly cases when even respect for negative rights fails to come out on top (to me).

You can pretty easily find other examples that challenge the idea of right/wrong being about rights violations. If I see a man get stabbed and the assailant runs off, it is right to call an ambulance, and wrong to walk away letting him bleed to death. This right/wrong scenario can't be derived from a system of logic where good is synonymous with respecting negative rights. Yet we (mostly) all agree intuitively with the moral judgement above, because the goodness or badness centers on saving his life, not on whether I've violated his rights.

no one says my choosing to call an ambulance for him would be a violation of his rights, we're saying if I call the ambulance for that guy and then go through your pockets against your will to pay the ambulance that I have violated your rights...it's still his bill

do you not get that or are you into straw men? (serious question)

 

[efle]

no one says my choosing to call an ambulance for him would be a violation of his rights, we're saying if I call the ambulance for that guy and then go through your pockets against your will to pay the ambulance that I have violated your rights...it's still his bill

do you not get that or are you into straw men? (serious question)

That's not what I'm implying either. I'm implying not calling the ambulance is both wrong and not a violation of anyone's rights. This is a case of right/wrong not being derived from whether rights are being respected or violated. Take it as a condition that the ambulance ride would be free - that's really missing the point.

Do you think this thought experiment is a straw man? (serious question). My goal here is just to challenge how Mad Jack proposed we discern right from wrong (ask "does it violate a negative right"), not try to misrepresent arguments about financing healthcare.

 

[deleted480308]

That's not what I'm implying either. I'm implying not calling the ambulance is both wrong and not a violation of anyone's rights. This is a case of right/wrong not being derived from whether rights are being respected or violated. Take it as a condition that the ambulance ride would be free - that's really missing the point.

Do you think this thought experiment is a straw man? (serious question). My goal here is just to challenge how Mad Jack proposed we discern right from wrong (ask "does it violate a negative right"), not try to misrepresent arguments about financing healthcare.

But you center on a false premise that violating or not violating someone's rights is immaterial to whether an action is proper.

And you do it using the exact same logic of some of the most horrible violations of rights ever.....sure these japanese americans are having their natural rights violated by being forced into camps but we have so many people's safety to be concerned with, sure the men at tuskeegee are having their natural rights violated but think of the lives we can help with this medical knowledge.....it's not ok at all

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm not wrong, we just differ in axiology. I do think the theft can be morally justified AND ALSO be a rights violation. The concept of rights is in my view a means to an end, not the actual item of intrinsic worth. If you could divert a trolly to kill one man instead of five, would you? Drone strike a meeting of genocide or terrorist leadership knowing a civilian captive might be present at the compound? There are clearly cases when even respect for negative rights fails to come out on top (to me).

You can pretty easily find other examples that challenge the idea of right/wrong being about rights violations. If I see a man get stabbed and the assailant runs off, it is right to call an ambulance, and wrong to walk away letting him bleed to death. This right/wrong scenario can't be derived from a system of logic where good is synonymous with respecting negative rights. Yet we (mostly) all agree intuitively with the moral judgement above, because the goodness or badness centers on saving his life, not on whether I've violated his rights.

Evidently you're unfamiliar with the concept of Natural Rights, one of the very underpinning foundations of Western law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Natural rights are something entirely separate from right and wrong, they just are. They can't be infringed by a government, and are your rights as a human being. They are exclusively negative rights. Now, is it wrong to not call an ambulance? Yes, it is. But does the person that is dying have a right for you to call an ambulance? No, they do not, because that would be silly- rights aren't about morality, they are about justice. Justice is about being fair, morality is about doing good and avoiding evil. These two things are very much not the same, and confounding them is pretty much the entire root of why people don't get that healthcare cannot be a right- it is good for more people than it is bad, so in a utilitarian sense it is "the greater good," but it violates the natural rights of providers, taxpayers, and potentially patients, making it unjust and thus against libertarian ideals. Justice has traditionally been more important than morality in regard to legal and governmental systems in Western society, as citizens are free actors and not required to act morally (with some exceptions, many of which- such as adultery and the like- have been discarded over the years).

There is no writing on the wall that says utilitarianism is the best way to construct a society- societies can be constructed in many ways, and the best for the most might very well not be the most ideal of scenarios. Moral but unjust laws are an abomination and a mockery to our system, at least in my view. And that is what you're proposing, at the end of the day- "good" laws that violate the natural principles of justice that no nation should violate, but most do.

 

[efle]

But you center on a false premise that violating or not violating someone's rights is immaterial to whether an action is proper.

Which brings us full circle to my thought experiment. It is not proper to walk away from the bleeding man. This can't be explained in a system built only around negative rights. How can I be doing anything wrong by walking away, when it does not violate any right of his for me to do so?

And you do it using the exact same logic of some of the most horrible violations of rights ever.....sure these japanese americans are having their natural rights violated by being forced into camps but we have so many people's safety to be concerned with, sure the men at tuskeegee are having their natural rights violated but think of the lives we can help with this medical knowledge.....it's not ok at all

Of course "for the greater good" has been abused. So has "this rule is right, always."

 

[deleted480308]

Which brings us full circle to my thought experiment. It is not proper to walk away from the bleeding man. This can't be explained in a system built only around negative rights. How can I be doing anything wrong by walking away, when it does not violate any right of his for me to do so?


Of course "for the greater good" has been abused. So has "this rule is right, always."

"I don't get to violate your natural rights" has a dang good track record

 

[efle]

Evidently you're unfamiliar with the concept of Natural Rights, one of the very underpinning foundations of Western law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Natural rights are something entirely separate from right and wrong, they just are. They can't be infringed by a government, and are your rights as a human being. They are exclusively negative rights. Now, is it wrong to not call an ambulance? Yes, it is. But does the person that is dying have a right for you to call an ambulance? No, they do not, because that would be silly- rights aren't about morality, they are about justice. Justice is about being fair, morality is about doing good and avoiding evil. These two things are very much not the same, and confounding them is pretty much the entire root of why people don't get that healthcare cannot be a right- it is good for more people than it is bad, so in a utilitarian sense it is "the greater good," but it violates the natural rights of providers, taxpayers, and potentially patients, making it unjust and thus against libertarian ideals. Justice has traditionally been more important than morality in regard to legal and governmental systems in Western society, as citizens are free actors and not required to act morally (with some exceptions, many of which- such as adultery and the like- have been discarded over the years).

There is no writing on the wall that says utilitarianism is the best way to construct a society- societies can be constructed in many ways, and the best for the most might very well not be the most ideal of scenarios. Moral but unjust laws are an abomination and a mockery to our system, at least in my view. And that is what you're proposing, at the end of the day- "good" laws that violate the natural principles of justice that no nation should violate, but most do.

Have you read the page for rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

They are fundamental normative rules in social/ethical systems. When we talk about rights, we are talking in the realm of right and wrong.

Or perhaps a definition for "just"? In Merriam Webster it's "agreeing with what is considered morally right or good"

So I gotta disagree on this whole bit. You don't really get to separate these things. Our understanding of what is justice, what are rights, what is good and bad to do to each other are not separate things. "Moral but unjust" doesn't exist.

 

[efle]

"I don't get to violate your natural rights" has a dang good track record

Doesn't that let you walk away from the bleeding man just fine? Doesn't violate his natural rights to do so.

 

[deleted480308]

Doesn't that let you walk away from the bleeding man just fine? Doesn't violate his natural rights to do so.

Me bleeding doesn't give me a right to demand anything from you at all, you can choose to help but I can't compell you

What you keep forgetting is your twisted system allows you to actually kill me if decide you like the benefits of doing so

 

[efle]

Me bleeding doesn't give me a right to demand anything from you at all, you can choose to help but I can't compell you

What you keep forgetting is your twisted system allows you to actually kill me if decide you like the benefits of doing so

Which I even mentioned above. If you're a civilian captive in a bunker with a guy driving genocide, it is justifiable to blow you both up.

 

[Mad Jack]

Have you read the page for rights?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

They are fundamental normative rules in social/ethical systems. When we talk about rights, we are talking in the realm of right and wrong.

Or perhaps a definition for "just"? In Merriam Webster it's "agreeing with what is considered morally right or good"

So I gotta disagree on this whole bit. You don't really get to separate these things. Our understanding of what is justice, what are rights, what is good and bad to do to each other are not separate things.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

This is one of those things where you have to read a good deal about philosophy in regard to understand. Natural rights, as understood in Western legal philosophy, are: Life (that one not be murdered or otherwise physically harmed, etc), Liberty (that one not be imprisoned, exiled or otherwise forbidden to travel, restrained from practicing their trade, etc), and Property (ownership of private goods and land). These are the rights that cannot be infringed upon by any act of government, because they are not bestowed by the government, they simply are. They are not inherently "good-" a man that is evil but has not yet violated another's rights is allowed to live, property is in no way restrained from being acquired by means that do not violate the right to life or liberty, etc. They do not represent morality, but rather a real definition of what is just. Not some liberal abstraction of it- this is the most bare-bones, fair way of looking at the world. Any violation of these rights is inherently unjust, no matter how moral that violation may be.

 

[deleted480308]

Which I even mentioned above. If you're a civilian captive in a bunker with a guy driving genocide, it is justifiable to blow you both up.

Nope. Tactically efficient doesn't mean moral.

 

[Mad Jack]

Which I even mentioned above. If you're a civilian captive in a bunker with a guy driving genocide, it is justifiable to blow you both up.

Actually, that is a just action- I forgot to list the one last natural right, and that is of self defense. Killing a man who is going to kill yourself or people within your country is an act of self-defense in regard to your own right to life, and is completely justifiable under the natural rights model. Note again that this is still does not make self-defense inherently moral- a guy could be trying to kill you because you did something terrible on moral grounds that fell short of murder, but you would have the right to defend yourself and kill him in the exchange.

Edit: Oh wait, missed that you were killing a civilian in the bunker. No, that would be an unjustified killing- only taking out the man who was a threat would be justifiable. There is no excuse for killing the innocent in the name of efficiency.

 

[efle]

They are not inherently "good-" a man that is evil but has not yet violated another's rights

Again, this distinction doesn't exist. The philosophy around natural rights is a field of ethical philosophy - if we step up from wiki, the SEP opens the section on natural laws and rights by describing them as "certain moral truths that applied to all people." An act is evil when it violates natural rights. That's the whole premise of the theory. You cannot separate wrong from violation of rights. There is no such thing as "moral but unjust."

There is no excuse for killing the innocent in the name of efficiency.

And here we disagree, fundamentally. Sparing that civilian at the cost of a population of other innocents is wrong to me. Leaving the trolly on track to kill a family because it's wrong to divert it onto another innocent doesn't work for me. It's really not that we fail to understand each other here - it's that hedonic utilitarianism and natural law theory disagree on this kind of issue.

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, this distinction doesn't exist. The philosophy around natural rights is a field of ethical philosophy - if we step up from wiki, the SEP opens the section on natural laws and rights by describing them as "certain moral truths that applied to all people." An act is evil when it violates natural rights. That's the whole premise of the theory. You cannot separate wrong from violation of rights. There is no such thing as "moral but unjust."


And here we disagree, fundamentally. Sparing that civilian at the cost of a population of other innocents is wrong to me. Leaving the trolly on track to kill a family because it's wrong to divert it onto another innocent doesn't work for me. It's really not that we fail to understand each other here - it's that hedonic utilitarianism and natural law theory disagree on this kind of issue.

There's plenty of things that are, for instance, viewed as "right" because they are in-line with a religion, and adherents to that religion would find those things to be moral. Natural rights are truly just, because they exist regardless of culture or society- they simply are. Morals, on the other hand, are subjective to a particular society or religion's will. For instance, the Spartans viewed it as moral to kill any child that did not appear perfect at birth. The view of natural rights would find this to be unjust, as it is arbitrarily depriving the child of its fair shot at life, liberty, etc. The same goes for confiscating someone's property because of society's whims- this is viewed by many to be morally "right," but contrary to the idea of the natural law of ownership of property, which prevents one from having property of theirs taken against their will. Hence, it is unjust to take one's property, but it is viewed by society as the morally right thing to do.

You can find plenty of lovely debates on the issue by different authors over the centuries, we surely can't explore it all here, and this is a very simplified representation of it, but what it boils down to is that rights are only for the good of the individual, and that morality is a construct that is meant to determine the good of the society (think of any moral dilemmas that involve precisely one person- you can't). Natural laws are designed to protect those things which a person would have in the absence of anyone else being there, if they were operating as a one individual island. Society's views of morality are largely formed around the idea of groups of people working together for a "greater good," often to the detriment of individuals. The good of the individual should take precedent over that of society, as natural rights should not be arbitrarily violated based upon what a majority subjectively believes.

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, this distinction doesn't exist. The philosophy around natural rights is a field of ethical philosophy - if we step up from wiki, the SEP opens the section on natural laws and rights by describing them as "certain moral truths that applied to all people." An act is evil when it violates natural rights. That's the whole premise of the theory. You cannot separate wrong from violation of rights. There is no such thing as "moral but unjust."


And here we disagree, fundamentally. Sparing that civilian at the cost of a population of other innocents is wrong to me. Leaving the trolly on track to kill a family because it's wrong to divert it onto another innocent doesn't work for me. It's really not that we fail to understand each other here - it's that hedonic utilitarianism and natural law theory disagree on this kind of issue.

The trolley scenario is ridiculous, as one is not merely a bystander in such a situation. It's basically an exercise that proves nothing, as it is too abstract to have meaning. If you were a random bystander that happened to be at the controls, you are a murderer no matter what, essentially, and you are doing something morally reprehensible either way by choosing who lives and who dies.

In regard to an actual scenario in which terrorists are operating in a building with civilians- there are other options, it isn't air strike or nothing. If there were American civilians present, there is a zero percent chance we air strike precisely because of the principle of the value of the lives of our citizens- we send in a surgical strike team on the off chance we can save those civilians. We don't just rain hell on them. And if they're foreign civilians, I still believe we should take the same course of action- surgical strikes risk the lives of willing soldiers to both achieve an objective and save civilians, it's winning all around.

 

[efle]

Morals, on the other hand, are subjective to a particular society or religion's will.

morality is a construct

Society's views of morality are largely formed around the idea of groups of people working together for a "greater good,"

Alright, much love and respect for you, but you've clearly no idea what you're talking about in the first bit. Only a very small and unpopular set of metaethical theories thinks morals are subject to time and place (moral relativists). All the big normative ethical theories including both deontological and consequentialist ones begin with belief in real, objective/external moral truths.

The trolley scenario is ridiculous, as one is not merely a bystander in such a situation. It's basically an exercise that proves nothing, as it is too abstract to have meaning. If you were a random bystander that happened to be at the controls, you are a murderer no matter what, essentially, and you are doing something morally reprehensible either way by choosing who lives and who dies.

It's a classic. I apologize if thought experiments offend you, but they really aren't supposed to be realistic, they're just supposed to isolate a thought process. If you read Nozick's experience machine and your thought is "that's ridiculous, nobody could actually make a machine to perfectly emulate experiences," you've missed the point. You're really not equally a murderer in both cases according to natural law theory - in one case there is a negative event already in progress while you observe, while in the other you actively step in to cause the death of an innocent. Only one of these is a natural rights violation. The group of people doesn't have a right to make you pull the lever. The single person does have a right not to have the lever pulled on him.

In regard to an actual scenario in which terrorists are operating in a building with civilians- there are other options, it isn't air strike or nothing. If there were American civilians present, there is a zero percent chance we air strike precisely because of the principle of the value of the lives of our citizens- we send in a surgical strike team on the off chance we can save those civilians. We don't just rain hell on them. And if they're foreign civilians, I still believe we should take the same course of action- surgical strikes risk the lives of willing soldiers to both achieve an objective and save civilians, it's winning all around.

And in an actual scenario in which we would have to take money from rich people to feed, clothe, educate the poor, zero chance we say nah, let's only take what people give charitably. We take the money. Soon healing will end up on the list. Society is complicated and you can find a lot of examples of many moral theories in practice all at once.

 

[johnfree7]

Morals, on the other hand, are subjective to a particular society or religion's will.

No offense but any freshman undergrad who has taken Philosophy 101 or Ethics would laugh at this statement. You really have no idea what you are talking about on this or any moral issue you have argued about up to this point.

 

[Mad Jack]

No offense but any freshman undergrad who has taken Philosophy 101 or Ethics would laugh at this statement. You really have no idea what you are talking about on this or any moral issue you have argued about up to this point.

Or I just subscribe more to philosophies you don't care for- there's also that.

And no offense, but I hope the country burns before people like you get the chance to run it.

 

[Mad Jack]

No offense but any freshman undergrad who has taken Philosophy 101 or Ethics would laugh at this statement. You really have no idea what you are talking about on this or any moral issue you have argued about up to this point.

Oh, and as to them being different, from a philosophy professor:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4941



"In English, we used to have fine distinctions between the terms ethics and morality, duties and obligations, labor and work, recklessness and negligence..... but we English-speakers seem less keen about the finer distinctions at work.

...justice usually pertains to matters of governance and human rights. And there are different domains of justice: Distributive justice concerns the distribution of goods and burdens; Retributive justice refers to matters of punishment; Restorative justice refers to compensation for past wrongful harms, and so on. Such forms of justice are related to rights, distributive justice may concern itself with a person's having a right to health care, retributive justice needs to address respecting or violating a person's right to a fair trial. What we call morality can certainly enter into different domains of justice or specific forms of inquiry about what is just or unjust in war, for example ("Just War Theory"). But morality is, in a sense, broader than matters of governance. In a class on morality, one might take up the moral permissibility of abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage, physician assisted suicide all of which have implications for governance but in a moral inquiry there tends to be less interest in the actual legality of an act. So, you and your friend may fully agree that abortion is legally permitted in the USA, prostitution is legal in Las Vagas, pornography is available to adults on the internet, and you and your friend may have compelling arguments and objections of the morality of each of these domains. What is known as moral psychology is especially concerned with the nature and value of motives: pride, compassion, empathy, anger, greed, lust, envy, jealousy, love, hate..."

Justice can be influenced by morality, but is a distinct entity that has (historically, and up until recently) had a very different meaning that what people think it has today, at least in regard to philosophy. They mix and mingle, but are separate things.

 

[efle]

Or I just subscribe more to philosophies you don't care for- there's also that.

And no offense, but I hope the country burns before people like you get the chance to run it.

But do you truly? You'd leave the trolly on its path, since the greater consequences to human lives are secondary to an individuals right not to have their life ended?

 

[Mad Jack]

But do you truly? You'd leave the trolly on its path, since the greater consequences to human lives are secondary to an individuals right not to have their life ended?

I'd rather watch society fall than live in one that does not value personal freedom and the basic American principle of self-determination.

 

[deleted480308]

But do you truly? You'd leave the trolly on its path, since the greater consequences to human lives are secondary to an individuals right not to have their life ended?

yes.....nature/fate running it's course is superior to you assuming the power to kill/steal at will