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

[kiwimac]

She is obviously a product of a selfish society.

[Starlight]

She is obviously a product of a selfish society.

Misread that as 'shellfish society'... which was slightly confusing to say the least.

[Meh Gerbil]

Misread that as 'shellfish society'... which was slightly confusing to say the least.

Why cannot she be both?
Or don't you fall for the whole Alex Jones secret Shellfish Society conspiracy theory?

[JimL]

You stated that moral behavior is people cooperating with one another.
The behavior serves a purpose (survival) which would be a human purpose (bears don't consider human survival to be moral) and quite subjective.
So yes, your subjective morality does have a purpose or design behind it.

JimL was writing about an objective morality but I think he's stuck with either subjective morality or none whatsoever.

Whatever moral system is in the best interests of human society, which is ultimately in the best interests of human beings, is objective, not subjective, and yes, it does have a purpose behind it, our collective best interests.

[Meh Gerbil]

Whatever moral system is in the best interests of human society, which is ultimately in the best interests of human beings, is objective, not subjective, and yes, it does have a purpose behind it, our collective best interests.

Yes, the purpose is our collective best interests but wouldn't that be subjective?
For example, bears might consider our extinction to be in their best interest.

I thought you were maintaining that the universe provided an objective moral code but I may have misunderstood you.

[JimL]

Yes, the purpose is our collective best interests but wouldn't that be subjective?
For example, bears might consider our extinction to be in their best interest.

The purpose of morality may be subjective, but the means of its achievment, the best moral system itself, is not. For instance, we all want to survive, to be happy in life, etc etc., and that desire is subjective, but the best moral system in which to achieve human desires, or goals, or our purpose, can't itself be subjective.

I thought you were maintaining that the universe provided an objective moral code but I may have misunderstood you.

Practically speaking yes, humanity is part of the universe, we are part of, and therefore subject to, the world we live in, thus what is in our best interests with respect to our behavior is subject to the conditions we find ourselves in, ergo, what is best with respect to morality, is objective.

[Meh Gerbil]

The purpose of morality may be subjective, but the means of its achievment, the best moral system itself, is not. For instance, we all want to survive, to be happy in life, etc etc., and that desire is subjective, but the best moral system in which to achieve human desires, or goals, or our purpose, can't itself be subjective.

Practically speaking yes, humanity is part of the universe, we are part of, and therefore subject to, the world we live in, thus what is in our best interests with respect to our behavior is subject to the conditions we find ourselves in, ergo, what is best with respect to morality, is objective.

I appreciate the clarifications.
I'd claim that if desire is subjective then anything based on those desires would have to be subjective.
I think you're assuming everyone wants the same thing here.

[JimL]

I appreciate the clarifications.
I'd claim that if desire is subjective then anything based on those desires would have to be subjective.
I think you're assuming everyone wants the same thing here.

Practically speaking, fundamentally, we do all want the same thing. Thats why the religious all want to go to heaven, they want to continue to live and to joy in that life eternal.

[seer]

Practically speaking, fundamentally, we do all want the same thing. Thats why the religious all want to go to heaven, they want to continue to live and to joy in that life eternal.

Jim the objective fact that we all (mostly) want to live does not tell us how we should morally treat our fellow man. If taking advantage of our fellow man increases ones wealth, security and longevity then that would fulfill that desire to live.

[NorrinRadd]

Well the Declaration of Independence's view that the government had obligations to ensure and enable "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" would seem to imply healthcare.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) specifically explicitly states that healthcare is a right. Your government signed that. Is your government an untrustworthy liar who doesn't keep the agreements it signs?

Good point. We seriously need to withdraw from that forthwith. It's a retarded premise.

[JimL]

Jim the objective fact that we all (mostly) want to live does not tell us how we should morally treat our fellow man. If taking advantage of our fellow man increases ones wealth, security and longevity then that would fulfill that desire to live.

Yes it does, because unless you are willing to treat others the way you want others to treat you, then your advantage will always be at risk and securing and maintaining your wealth, security and longevity is greatly diminished. Thus the adage, "do unto others............" One thing you seem to keep forgetting is that moral systems and moral codes are not about individuals per se, they are about human society.

[seer]

Yes it does, because unless you are willing to treat others the way you want others to treat you, then your advantage will always be at risk and securing and maintaining your wealth, security and longevity is greatly diminished. Thus the adage, "do unto others............" One thing you seem to keep forgetting is that moral systems and moral codes are not about individuals per se, they are about human society.

Jim, my wealth and security could still be threatened whether I treated my fellow man well or not. Many a cruel man has lived to a ripe old age, and many a good man have been cut down before their time. You are not making sense. And you keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that moral codes should serve the greater good. They could just as well serve the greedy majority or a powerful minority.

[JimL]

Jim, my wealth and security could still be threatened whether I treated my fellow man well or not.

C'mon seer, you know thats a false equivalency, you know that it is much less likely that your wealth and security is at risk than it would be if you lived in a world wherein people were not raised and shaped by the moral codes of their society.

Many a cruel man has lived to a ripe old age, and many a good man have been cut down before their time.

Again, false equivalency.

You are not making sense. And you keep forgetting that it is only your opinion that moral codes should serve the greater good. They could just as well serve the greedy majority or a powerful minority.

No, thats not just my opinion seer, that is their purpose, to serve the greater good of all, i.e. of society.

[seer]

C'mon seer, you know thats a false equivalency, you know that it is much less likely that your wealth and security is at risk than it would be if you lived in a world wherein people were not raised and shaped by the moral codes of their society.

But Jim, that is really not the world we live in. Wealth and security is one of the best ways to protect you and yours. Whether you treat others well or not.

Again, false equivalency.

No it is not Jim, it is an objective fact.

No, thats not just my opinion seer, that is their purpose, to serve the greater good of all, i.e. of society.

Jim where is the written? Who says that is the purpose of moral codes? How is that any more than you opinion?

[Sparko]

Yes it does, because unless you are willing to treat others the way you want others to treat you, then your advantage will always be at risk and securing and maintaining your wealth, security and longevity is greatly diminished. Thus the adage, "do unto others............" One thing you seem to keep forgetting is that moral systems and moral codes are not about individuals per se, they are about human society.

Society is made up of individual human beings. Human beings can do moral or immoral things. Society can't do anything. It is just the name of a group of individuals. They are moral or immoral. So when someone says Society says ____ or does _____ they are merely talking about a consensus of individual actions. Or in the case of a totalitarian society, what the leader says or does sometimes. But it always boils down to individual actions being moral or immoral (or amoral)

So morals are always about individuals.