Is healthcare a right?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 73
#31
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
OK. That is dangerous and in unamerican, but logically consistent to your POV.

You cannot possibly believe morality exists. For you, morality is two people saying, "I agree".

This is why your opinion that owning people is immoral is illogical nonsense. All it means is that you think many people don't like it.
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Incorrect. I think that people are better off if we agree to afford each other rights and also if we have a reasonable and fair moral structure that promotes personal and societal wellbeing I just don't imagine these feelings come anywhere but from myself.
Topic's author
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Rights are abstract concepts. Without humans to grant them they would not exist. As such they are neither self evident nor inalienable.
Religion has a rock-hard, practical foundation, such as "Do unto others..." [you know the rest], which is so concrete, it is shared by a least three dozen religious and secular organizations around the world. Speech is so concrete, we used it as one of the earliest communication techniques, by which 90% of civilization was dependent. A free press is so concrete, it crushes paper just to be newsworthy. A crowd gathered peaceably, even for protest, is seen, heard, touched, occasionally smelled, and sometimes even tasted. How much more concrete would you like it? Hell, that's just the 1A. 
#34
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
And that is why your opinion that owning people is immoral is illogical nonsense. 

#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Are you sure? It is based on a very simple idea. I would not like to be owned and so I don't think it would be right for me to own another.
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
No number of people sharing a subjective opinion will transform such an opinion into an objective fact. Rights are qualia. They are meaningful and important but not objective measurable facts.

Topic's author
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Rights are not measurable? Wow, do I pity your existence. As Richard Bach once said [Confessions of a Reluctant Messiah], "Argue for your limitations; they're yours." What stops is from a continual path of gaining knowledge and the ability to measure that which only seems infinite? See your mirror. That guy is your nemesis.
#38
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Rights by definition encompass an ought to. Ought tools by definition are subjective. You can make objective statements about the rights a society affords (or purports to afford) its citizens but the rights themselves are qualia not quanta.

#39
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you sure?
Very.

It is based on a very simple idea.
I know. But the complexity or simplicity of the idea matters not. The authority is what matters.

I would not like to be owned and so I don't think it would be right for me to own another.
And yet you can't see that this assumes that if you did like being owned, your morality would consider slavery moral. Basing morality on what you like is irrational and dangerous.

No number of people sharing a subjective opinion will transform such an opinion into an objective fact. Rights are qualia.
That is exactly right! But that us my point to you. The number of people who agree (or disagree) mean nothing to morality.

They are meaningful and important but not objective measurable facts
Then your expectation that others observe your subjective opinions is nonsense. Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?

Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions. That is why your system naively assumes everyone is like you, and likes (and hates) the same things. And that is why you have to dodge questions that expose that failing.

Ought tools by definition are subjective. 
No sir. You must not know what an "ought" is in ethics (morality being a subset) Only objective values can carry an ought. No subjective value can be an "ought" for another person.

Your morality is your personal tastes. That is fine, till you start condemning others for not observing your personal tastes.

The only difference between your morality and a fascist is that you have less power to impose your personal tastes.
#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?
They don't necessarily but I hope they do care about my freedom and I care about their freedom. 
Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions.
Well stated. Out of curiosity how exactly is your moral not just a subjective opinion?
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Obviously Mr Ethan thinks that their opinion is the right opinion, based upon their conditioned sensibilities.

Which in fairness is how we all tend to function, despite our self perceived magnanimity and/or righteousness.

Though some people are clearly more open minded than others.

Rights, ethics, morality etc, are by definition conceptually driven and therefore abstract. They only become concrete, when either forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual, or when generally accepted and applied by the group.

And of course how we apply right and morality is never steadfast. We are always subject to the vagaries of our own and the groups ability to be selective and biased.


#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?

They don't necessarily but I hope they do care about my freedom and I care about their freedom. 
You're missing the point. Your feelings are not the point. The purpose of morality is to allow people to live harmoniously in societies, if everyone simply uses his own personal morality as the standard, society cannot function.

The point here is what are "rights"? You say there are no inalienable rights. That means you disagree with our constitution. You could not morally disagree with slavery. You can only say you personally don't like it. But so what? Your feelings can change. How can someone rights be based on how you feel?

Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions.

Well stated. Out of curiosity how exactly is your moral not just a subjective opinion?
Wait. Don't run away. Whatever my morals, it will not save you from the problems I'm pointing out in your morality.

You cannot call any behavior immoral. You can only say that behavior is not your taste. But so what? When people morally object to something, they are not referring to their personal taste, or else their judgement is frivolous.

Why should I have a debate with you about your personal tastes? That is like debating you about you preferring chocolate icecream. So what?

Morality carries an "ought". This means that people "ought" to respect and follow it. But no one "ought" to respect and follow your personal tastes.

Your position completely invalidates the concept of morality, and reduces it to mere personal tastes. But yet you irrationally want to keep the qualities that come only with actual morality.

Zed - They only become concrete, when either forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual
And no one's personal tastes should be forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual. Neither should anyone be judged morality by the personal tastes of another.

But if we only have personal tastes, as SecMer says, morality becomes incoherent and unfair.

There is nothing we have to say to each other SecMer. We aren't talking about the same thing, and your argument is not rational. It's emotional.
#43
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
the individual saves money in the process because the middleman (the insurance company) is removed from the system.

You're not removing the middle man, you're just choosing to use the government as your middleman instead.

Fauxlaw spells it out pretty clearly above. If you have difficulty understanding any of the particular points he brings up feel free to ask about it but if you continue to not fully understand the explanation that in no way detracts from its validity.
#44
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Can you give an example of an inalienable right?
#45
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Do you disagree?
#46
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Would you say that those rights cannot be alienated or would you say that they should not be alienated?
#47
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Depends on what you mean by "alienated".

Look at it this way, if your right to be free, for example, is inalienable, you retain the right even if imprisoned. It is a violation of your right.

Inalienable rights are not changed by local conditions.

But if your right to be free, for example, is NOT inalienable, then you lose the right when imprisoned. It is not a violation, as your right to freedom has been curtailed.

Dispute what SecMer says, the right to be free does not come from human consensus. It can be protected or violated by men, but it is not sourced in men.
#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
You actually are missing the point. Of course I can't use my personal moral standard where it differs from societies standard but societies standard is just the amalgamation of our individual moral standards into a group standard that (mostly) everyone can live with.

I don't disagree with our constitution in principle and I think the rights it sets put are beneficial to our society and freedom but we only have those rights because we all agree that we should and that could change at any time (let's hope it doesn't).
Topic's author
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
You can make objective statements about the rights a society affords (or purports to afford) its citizens but the rights themselves are qualia not quanta.

No, mere statements about rights are subjective. We describe them in terms of our perspective of them. Rights, as merely described, such as by the Constitution, exist as qualia. As they exist in that format, described, but not used, they remain mere subjective ideas, but that is not why rights exist, is it? Like the emotion, love, [another quale, as all emotions are] it exists as an abstract until it is used. Rights, taken from their abstract qualia form by use, become quanta, and, therefore measurable.
It is the same with all tools the consciousness of man has devised. For example, a door. A door, when closed, and, therefore not used as its intent is to allow passage from one space to another, may be described as a wall. It serves all functions of a wall. A door is useful only when open, effectively creating a void through which one may pass. Therefore, we make use of what isn't [a void created by an open door] to use what is; the space it divides when a "wall."
The pointy is, the open door is measurable. How open is it, by a function of movement through an arc?
#50
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Can you give an example of an inalienable right?
being alive, if you're not alive then rights don't apply


#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Personal tastes etc.
Exactly.

And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself  were attempting to put across.

Morality is personal, therefore abstract, therefore subjective, therefore not concrete, so collective morality is only a collection thereof.


But it is not sourced in Men?

#52
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself  were attempting to put across.
You guys always miss (ignore) the point. I'm not just telling you that your morality is simply your personal tastes. If it is, so what? I'm telling you, because your morality is just your personal tastes, any moral judgement you make of someone's else's behavior is illogical nonsense.

No one can be immoral because they do what you personally find distasteful. Telling us that a certain behavior is not to your personal tastes carries no useful information. We are talking morality, why are you telling us your personal tastes?

And before you start babbling that my morality is this or that too, accept or deny my charge about your morality.

How can you call anyone moral or immoral when for you, those terms can only mean, "I personally like" and "I personally don't like"? How is what you personally like relevant to a discussion of morality?
#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
You guys etc.
Et tu Brute.


And so, because of the abstract nature of morality it is therefore my contention that morality and personal taste when regarded within an applicable context can be accepted as one and the same thing. It really is just a case of call it what you will, when you will.

And as far as I am aware, I have never babbled as stated.

My morality within the context of British social requirements is probably what might be regarded as standard.

And morality does rather appear to be your hang up and not mine.

Generally, I would regard the phrase "personal taste" as something like preference of tea rather than coffee or classical music rather than rap etc.

Nonetheless morality is still a personal decision or personal requirement....Or personal taste if you will.


#54
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
When you get past your tea time, and are ready to face the moral implications of your belief, we'll talk.
Topic's author
#55
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Morality? Which one? There are as many expressions of morality among humans than there are climates.
#56
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
@WaterPhoenix
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

I reckon it is possible to take away a persons life, though I think in most cases it is something that should not be done.

Would you disagree that it is possible to take away someone's life? Would you disagree that in most cases such should not be done?
#57
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Inalienable - Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
With the right to life, the above refers to the right, not the life. Even someone's life is taken, their right to life remains intact. That is what makes taking their life immoral, the violation of their right to that life.
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The problem with healthcare is that it is a flawed concept, in that we can't make people immortal with infinite resources. So when you say health care is a right, you have to define a certain level of flawed healthcare as a right. Is Tylenol a right? Are infinite organ transplants at age 95 a right? 

Maybe something in between? It has to be defined since healthcare is flawed.
#59
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My logic is that you can't have rights when your dead, so the moment your consciousness dies, is the moment when rights don't apply to you anymore.
Topic's author
#60
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I split the definition. We currently have access to healthcare; everyone will typically be seen by a doctor in the US even if unable to pay. However, it is the access to outcome that is not a right. Ongoing treatment with a desired outcome is not a right; that condition is a privilege. This is why I use the example of a person who is in a fatal condition but for the availability of an organ transplant. There are no organ warehouses by which such a patient is guaranteed survival. Not to mention that, according to CDC, roughly 60% of cancer patients, and 70% of heart disease and diabetes patients would not have their diseases but for poor choices by the patients to consume a proper diet, exercise, and live prudent lifestyles [not like an MYV jackarse, for example.] All of us have the right to choose to engage these activities, but a percentage of use will acquire these diseases regardless. So, even by choice, healthcare outcome is not fully a right.