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

[seer]

Pretty easily. It still traces out to "let me be free" and "treat me well". Those are the basic, fundamental goals that everyone shares.

Yet Carrikature other men pursue goals that require not treating men well and encroaching on their freedom. And that seem to be their fundamental goal - personal power and wealth, at the expense of others. If you say that such men also desire freedom and good treatment what difference does that make in their quest for power and control?

No, we don't. A moral code includes the definitions. It doesn't matter whose it is. We only have to deal with whose if we ask which is best.

Again, best for whom? Best defined by whom?

[JimL]

Pretty easily. It still traces out to "let me be free" and "treat me well". Those are the basic, fundamental goals that everyone shares.




No, we don't. A moral code includes the definitions. It doesn't matter whose it is. We only have to deal with whose if we ask which is best.

Which leads to the assumption that as far as moral codes, or moral systems, for human society go, there must be a best, no matter what any one individual might think. And I would add that whatever that best moral system is, it would be objectively best regardless of its grounding.

[seer]

Which leads to the assumption that as far as moral codes, or moral systems, for human society go, there must be a best, no matter what any one individual might think. And I would add that whatever that best moral system is, it would be objectively best regardless of its grounding.

Of course if we were designed then there would be a best way to live. The way we were designed for. If not what is "best" for us is the haphazard by product of biological processes. And that genetic material (us) could change, changing what then would be best for us.

[Meh Gerbil]

Which leads to the assumption that as far as moral codes, or moral systems, for human society go, there must be a best, no matter what any one individual might think. And I would add that whatever that best moral system is, it would be objectively best regardless of its grounding.

I dunno about that, JimL.
That sounds like a theist argument.

Part of the problem would be: How do you objectively evaluate a moral code?

For example:
Obviously, objectively the BESTEST moral code is monogamous lifetime sexual relationships. I'd maintain that is the BESTEST based on the fact that such an arrangement would completely eliminate many sexual diseases within a couple of generations. (STDs often kill or render a person sterile) This alone would save BILLIONS in healthcare costs, human suffering, and death. The advantages to that sort of moral code are numerous, easily quantified, and apparent... unless you're 18, feeling 'anxious', and alone with a really hot chick. At about that point the YOLO moral code becomes objectively the best code.

If your objective is subjectively determined you get what we have now.

[guacamole]

Geez. A brother takes one day off to grade finals and the whole thread runs away. Good for the health of tweb I guess...

shucks,
guacamole

[Meh Gerbil]

Geez. A brother takes one day off to grade finals and the whole thread runs away. Good for the health of tweb I guess...

shucks,
guacamole

Pick One:
1: Your job
2: TWEB

You serve one or the other.

[Joel]

Yeah, you have a lot of work to prove most of these are bad things. The primary reason I will never be libertarian is the anarchic nonsense about removing necessary regulations. I happen to work in a profession with 'legal barriers to entry' that are quite necessary, and I have enough experience with what happens when approval requirements are tossed out the window. No thanks.

We can discuss and weigh the tradeoffs if you want. But there is a tradeoff here. Any benefits need to be weighed against the cost, such as reduced supply, which results in higher prices, with fewer people able to afford it.

My first post was a reply to Sparko, and it was because this had come up in a discussion earlier. In that discussion he worried that demand is inelastic, so people would be willing to pay "any price" with little reduction in quantity demanded. To which I pointed out that if that is the case, then even a small increase in supply would greatly lower prices. Which may be possible with adjustments to the legal limits to supply that I mentioned.

That is, when discussing the tradeoff, it's not all-or-nothing (status quo or no laws at all). For example, I've heard that the AMA imposes numerical limits on numbers of medical schools and numbers of students, e.g. with many states not allowed to have more than one school. A monopoly in that position would be motivated to do so, to restrict competition to keep salaries high. So perhaps there are things that can be done to reduce the control by a single monopoly, or otherwise to increase the ability to go to medical school.

Another suggestion I've heard is that the door could be opened for people to be trained and licensed in particular services or areas that are currently restricted to full physicians. Because such jobs could be acquired with much less training, it would lower costs and promote increased supply, both in those particular areas and for full physicians because it would free up time of physicians to do more advanced work.

Some of the things (e.g. certificates of need) seem to have no safety benefit, and seem to be entirely about limiting competition.

Other things I mentioned would take more discussion (which I'm glad to if anyone likes), but I think there is room for improvement with them too.

[JimL]

I dunno about that, JimL.
That sounds like a theist argument.

Part of the problem would be: How do you objectively evaluate a moral code?

For example:
Obviously, objectively the BESTEST moral code is monogamous lifetime sexual relationships. I'd maintain that is the BESTEST based on the fact that such an arrangement would completely eliminate many sexual diseases within a couple of generations. (STDs often kill or render a person sterile) This alone would save BILLIONS in healthcare costs, human suffering, and death. The advantages to that sort of moral code are numerous, easily quantified, and apparent... unless you're 18, feeling 'anxious', and alone with a really hot chick. At about that point the YOLO moral code becomes objectively the best code.

If your objective is subjectively determined you get what we have now.

No, I mean a best moral system is consistent with theism, but it is consistent with nature as well, like I said, it would be true and objective regardless of its grounding. For instance, if monogomous lifetime relationships are ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society, then that is simply because it is ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society, and need have nothing to do with anything other than that fact.

[Meh Gerbil]

No, I mean a best moral system is consistent with theism, but it is consistent with nature as well, like I said, it would be true and objective regardless of its grounding. For instance, if monogomous lifetime relationships are ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society, then that is simply because it is ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society, and need have nothing to do with anything other than that fact.

So you're saying an ultimate 'best moral system' exists out there regardless of the existence of a god?

I'll throw an objection your way just to get your thoughts.
I'm going to disagree with that because without a purpose there really can be no best moral system.

If your purpose is to save human life then the morality of donating blood is clear.
If your purpose is to destroy human life (to save the planet, for example) then the donating of blood would not be so clear.
Our evaluation of the best in that case would be dependent upon our purpose.

I know the example is weak, try to roll with it.

I just think a universe without an underlying purpose couldn't possibly suggest a best moral code because with no goal/purpose in sight there really wouldn't be a means to evaluate an action. We could do it on a personal level, sure, but then it would no longer be objective.

[seer]

I just think a universe without an underlying purpose couldn't possibly suggest a best moral code because with no goal/purpose in sight there really wouldn't be a means to evaluate an action. We could do it on a personal level, sure, but then it would no longer be objective.

That is exactly right - you surprise me...

[Starlight]

I just think a universe without an underlying purpose couldn't possibly suggest a best moral code because with no goal/purpose in sight there really wouldn't be a means to evaluate an action.

Morality is about interpersonal interactions and about whether the intentions with which are action is undertaken are positive or negative toward others. It's not complicated... did the person have ill-will towards the person, or were the acting out of benevolence, or was it some combination thereof? That's why the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and variants thereof have been a part of so many cultures throughout history, or as parts of the bible put it "love others".

[Meh Gerbil]

Morality is about interpersonal interactions and about whether the intentions with which are action is undertaken are positive or negative toward others. It's not complicated... did the person have ill-will towards the person, or were the acting out of benevolence, or was it some combination thereof? That's why the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and variants thereof have been a part of so many cultures throughout history, or as parts of the bible put it "love others".

You've expressed the design/purpose that people are to cooperate with one another.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Starlight]

You've expressed the design/purpose that people are to cooperate with one another.

No I didn't.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Humans live in communities and evolved as social animals, so I think the statement above is true even though I didn't express it.

[Meh Gerbil]

No I didn't.

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.

[Joel]

Morality is about interpersonal interactions and about whether the intentions with which are action is undertaken are positive or negative toward others. It's not complicated... did the person have ill-will towards the person, or were the acting out of benevolence, or was it some combination thereof?

Are you saying only intent matters? That would explain much about the political "left".

I pointed out earlier in this thread that the largest injustices in history were committed by people with benevolent intentions and thus the approval of their own conscience.

For fun I'll add a quote by Isabel Patterson:
"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends."
--"The Humanitarian With The Guillotine", 1943.