Miss USA: Health Care Is a Privilege, Not a Right...

[seer]

While it's certainly true that one needn't follow a particular code to achieve wealth and power, it's certainly evident that 1) such cases are outliers by far, and 2) fear remains a motivating factor behind maintaining these (see Stalin). It's pretty easy to see how there could be a method that is more viable for the general population, or (even better) eliminates the driving concern altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean - if absolute power is the goal I'm not sure how that happens nicely.

You're still conflating legal systems with moral codes. They aren't the same thing and never have been. It doesn't matter who the laws primarily serve. That's a political discussion, not a moral one.

Except most laws are grounded in moral ideals - it is "wrong" to rape... And I wasn't conflating anything - I made the distinction between moral and legal. Both can be used, in various ways, to control.

[seer]

Right. It doesn't tell us 'ought', but it's an important aspect of establishing 'ought'. So, too, is the realization that any action I take that infringes on your ability to achieve these goals will result in a pushback from you (and vice versa). It's trivial to say that such pushback would infringe on my own ability. The question, then, is how to we act in such a way as to realize our goals without having them infringed by others.

But what if there is little or no push back? What if one is in a powerful position where little blow back can be realized?

[Meh Gerbil]

You've conflated "serves a purpose" with "is the purpose". Cooperation serves the purpose of survival, yes. Cooperation is not the purpose itself.

If you can express a moral code that doesn't first start with at least an assumption of purpose be my guest.
In your example cooperation is the moral value that is suggested by the purpose of survival.

Without the purpose (survival) being decided first it is impossible to arrive at a moral directive (cooperation).

You're the first person I've heard suggest that a moral system can only be objective if it applies to all living creatures. That's not how anyone else treats it.

Then you've not been paying attention.
In fact, your own side of the aisle does this all of the time.

Every documentary on Evolution I've ever seen talks about how all of life has as its governing purpose the task of survival. Every awful thing I see on the screen (a lion tearing a gazelle to pieces) is all stuffed under the heading of 'survival'. All of the killing and death serves the purpose of survival and that is given as an explanation as to why it shouldn't horrify - it is the right thing to be happening and all living things adhere to that code.

Their standard of conduct (morality) follows directly from their drive to survive (purpose).

[JimL]

No it benefits humanity by making us better people. I never said it "came from above" I said it starts with the individual.

I believe the VALUES we believe are good come from God. But the actions we do to achieve what we think of as "good" is what morality is about. It is doing good things to be a better person. That is the simplest definition of morality.

Sure, you can believe that if you want, but my point is that God isn't necessary for you to behave in a way that we think of as good. There are logical, practical, reasons for "thinking our behaviors to be either good or evil" and none of those reasons necessitate God to be their source.

[Tassman]

Finally!
I've been waiting for Miss America to weigh in on this thing.

Yes finally, and she didn't disappoint.

But she's wrong. Healthcare (as with education) is recognised as a basic human right by every advanced nation in the world. Furthermore, common compassion aside, it's in a nation's own best interests to have a healthy population in the same way that it benefits from an educated population.

[seer]

Yes finally, and she didn't disappoint.

But she's wrong. Healthcare (as with education) is recognised as a basic human right by every advanced nation in the world. Furthermore, common compassion aside, it's in a nation's own best interests to have a healthy population in the same way that it benefits from an educated population.

Remember Tass in your world human rights are legal fictions. Just made up.

[Tassman]

Remember Tass in your world human rights are legal fictions. Just made up.

Incorrect! They’re instinctive. The basis of group living is the observance of a code of rules, AKA morality. And the instinctive reason why social animals like us live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone.

Hence, unlike the made-up rules “in your world”, which you have attributed to an imaginary deity, "in my world” they are grounded in our evolved instincts...we see the precursors of them in our fellow primates.

[seer]

Incorrect! They’re instinctive. The basis of group living is the observance of a code of rules, AKA morality. And the instinctive reason why social animals like us live in groups is that opportunities for survival and reproduction are much better in groups than living alone.

Oh stop! Conquering the neighboring tribe and taking their women and territory is also instinctive and benefits the conquering tribe's survival and reproduction. And remember only a minority of nations have accepted the Declaration of Human Rights. So health care as a right remains a legal fiction - it was made up by men and it can be rejected by men.

Hence, unlike the made-up rules “in your world”, which you have attributed to an imaginary deity, "in my world” they are grounded in our evolved instincts...we see the precursors of them in our fellow primates.

Evolved instincts - like the Maoists murdering 30+ million dissidents to maintain social order?

[JimL]

Oh stop! Conquering the neighboring tribe and taking their women and territory is also instinctive and benefits the conquering tribe's survival and reproduction.

Do you mean like the morality of Gods chosen people? The morals within a culture aren't necessarily applied by them to those outside of their culture. But whether internal cultural morals are applied externally or not isn't what determines whether they are ultimately good or evil with respect to humanity.

And remember only a minority of nations have accepted the Declaration of Human Rights. So health care as a right remains a legal fiction - it was made up by men and it can be rejected by men.

No, it is not a legal fiction, a right to affordable health care is in the best interest of society, it can certainly be rejected by small minded greedy sociopaths, but rejection doesn't make fact a fiction.

[seer]

Do you mean like the morality of Gods chosen people? The morals within a culture aren't necessarily applied by them to those outside of their culture. But whether internal cultural morals are applied externally or not isn't what determines whether they are ultimately good or evil with respect to humanity.

But again Jim, it is only your opinion that morality should serve the greater good (humanity) rather than the powerful elite.

No, it is not a legal fiction, a right to affordable health care is in the best interest of society, it can certainly be rejected by small minded greedy sociopaths, but rejection doesn't make fact a fiction.

Of course it is a legal fiction Jim, it is a made up ideal - if you think otherwise prove it. And why shouldn't the greedy elite get to make the rules - after all that is largely the history of man. And again, your moral opinion is no more valid or correct than theirs.

[Tassman]

Oh stop! Conquering the neighboring tribe and taking their women and territory is also instinctive and benefits the conquering tribe's survival and reproduction.

Yes, this is Tribalism, but such behaviour is not acceptable within the tribe, which is the point. How many times does this need to be repeated?

And remember only a minority of nations have accepted the Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is accepted by the signatories of the United Nations including the USA. Why are you against human rights for all?

So health care as a right remains a legal fiction

Health care is a ‘right’ for all people just as education’ is a right; it is to the nation’s benefit to have a healthy, well-educated populous.

- it was made up by men and it can be rejected by men.

...like the bible you mean.

Evolved instincts - like the Maoists murdering 30+ million dissidents to maintain social order?

Ah, the atheist atrocities fallacy so beloved of Evangelicals

Look to yourself, Christian.

[seer]

Yes, this is Tribalism, but such behaviour is not acceptable within the tribe, which is the point. How many times does this need to be repeated?

Yet wide spread rape is acceptable within higher primate groups. And they function just fine, and you are always telling us how much alike we are. But are you saying that that kind of behavior is OK outside the tribe?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is accepted by the signatories of the United Nations including the USA. Why are you against human rights for all?

I'm against fictions.

Health care is a ‘right’ for all people just as education’ is a right; it is to the nation’s benefit to have a healthy, well-educated populous.

You are just asserting that it is a right - where is your evidence? You could have universal education or health care without it being a "right." That whole idea of rights is merely a fiction. There are no rights in nature.

Ah, the atheist atrocities fallacy so beloved of Evangelicals

Hey you were the one talking about evolved instincts - and what the Maoists did were just as much attributed to evolved instincts as anything else. Funny how you seem to like certain instincts and not others - strange that....

[Tassman]

Yet wide spread rape is acceptable within higher primate groups. And they function just fine, and you are always telling us how much alike we are. But are you saying that that kind of behavior is OK outside the tribe?

Sexual coercion, sometimes leading to rape, is common among primates and undoubtedly was common among our Stone Age ancestors too given their close similarity. But any benefit in terms of furthering the species has been superseded among the human primates by the recognition of human rights...something that the tribal god of Moses failed to recognise when he authorised the genocides against neighbouring tribes.

I'm against fictions.

You’re against fictions; you’re a Christian aren’t you?

You are just asserting that it is a right - where is your evidence? You could have universal education or health care without it being a "right." That whole idea of rights is merely a fiction.

Why would you have universal education or health care or any other of the attributes of a social system, given that “the bible doesn’t tell you so”? The obvious answer is that it’s beneficial for the society.

There are no rights in nature.

There are no high fashion clothes or computers either, so what’s your point?

Hey you were the one talking about evolved instincts - and what the Maoists did were just as much attributed to evolved instincts as anything else. Funny how you seem to like certain instincts and not others - strange that....

No, you were the one who keeps on with the atheist atrocities fallacy whilst ignoring the atrocities of colonialism and the other horrors perpetrated by Christians.

[seer]

Sexual coercion, sometimes leading to rape, is common among primates and undoubtedly was common among our Stone Age ancestors too given their close similarity. But any benefit in terms of furthering the species has been superseded among the human primates by the recognition of human rights...something that the tribal god of Moses failed to recognise when he authorised the genocides against neighbouring tribes.

There you go with these made up rights again! And who are you to say what is best for the species or not? I thought all that was determined?

You’re against fictions; you’re a Christian aren’t you?

No God is real, and you can demonstrate that he does not exist. Human rights in a materialistic universe are obviously made up.

Why would you have universal education or health care or any other of the attributes of a social system, given that “the bible doesn’t tell you so”? The obvious answer is that it’s beneficial for the society.

But that does not make it a "right." It may be a nice thing to do, even beneficial - but that does not make it a "right." Most rights like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search are not paid for by someone else. If I want to protest something I don't make the government pay for my time and materials.

There are no high fashion clothes or computers either, so what’s your point?

Well I'm glad you admit that rights in your world are made up - and as such they can be unmade at will.

No, you were the one who keeps on with the atheist atrocities fallacy whilst ignoring the atrocities of colonialism and the other horrors perpetrated by Christians.

No Tass my point about the Maoists was to once again highlight how you seem to like certain evolved instincts while rejecting others. A bit hypocritical since you like to use evolved instincts to bolster you arguments about community and such while ignoring or minimizing other instincts because they don't suit your argument.

[Sparko]

Again, you are just making my point for me. Morals are relative to the best interests of human society, ergo to the best interests of human beings.



No argument there.

The point is that morals are relative to the good of human society, ergo to human beings, and need not be grounded in some arbitrary external source, which is the argument that theists like seer is always making.

wrong. they are relative to the individual. to make them better people. when you have a society of better people, you have a better society.