?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

02/22/2011 03:06:46 PM · #451

And when people do answer the question, they are ignored.

02/22/2011 03:08:01 PM · #452

Originally posted by Melethia:

And when people do answer the question, they are ignored.

Et tu, Deb?

I'll tell you what, maybe we can get the conversation back on track and talk about the System of Deb. :)

To be clear about your scenario. Are you saying, "I think her action is wrong, but let her do what she wants?" or "I think her action is permissible, so let her do what she wants?" There's a difference there. The first maybe is like throwing your hands up in a "kids will be kids" way and the second is saying that she certainly has the right to be self-destructive despite others footing the bill.

Message edited by author 2011-02-22 15:12:42.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/22/2011 03:20:39 PM · #453

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You're trying to disqualify him on semantics, Louis. That's not what he was trying to do, that's an INTERPRETATION of his intentions. He's repeatedly tried to back away from that, and nobody will let him.

He's asking a nonsensical question and getting upset when people say it doesn't make sense or fail to respond.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I know atheists have moral systems. I just want to explore them. (And, yes, before someone says the blatantly obvious, I understand there is no single "atheist morality". I chose this one because it's commonly mentioned here on DPC.)

I know people who don't believe in Bigfoot have moral systems. I just want to explore them. (And, yes, before someone says the blatantly obvious, I understand there is no single "people who don't believe in Bigfoot morality". I chose this one because it's commonly mentioned here on DPC.)

Hey, where are all those people who don't believe in Bigfoot? I'm just trying to understand how people who don't believe in Bigfoot would handle this hypothetical moral dilemma. Honest! It's an innocent call for understanding since I can't grasp how anyone not using the sacred cave art of Bigfoot as their moral compass can have a basis for opinion here, yadayadayada...

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/22/2011 03:32:48 PM · #454

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You people are giving the man no place to go. . . . You won't let him discuss "atheist morality", you won't let him discuss "libertarian morality" . . . .

Why is it so hard just to get into a discussion of the foundations of morality in non-religious peoples?

I have no problem with a discussing the concept of morality in an atheist context, and I don't have a problem with discussion of the moral implications of libertarianism. I do have a problem with the intimation that libertarianism is somehow an "atheist moral system." Yes, individual atheists will have individual moral systems and viewpoints, but as has been pointed out ad nauseam, there simply is no "atheist moral system" and there is nothing inherently atheist about libertarianism or other secular moral systems (liberalism; socialism; marxism; conservatism; facism; etc.).

Admittedly, Doc carries a lot of baggage on this philosophical ground as he is on record as believing that there can be no objective morality in an atheist context. A lot of the push-back is legitimately coming out of suspicion of Doc's underlying motives.

Message edited by author 2011-02-22 16:00:24.

02/22/2011 03:38:00 PM · #455

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
And when people do answer the question, they are ignored.

Et tu, Deb?

I'll tell you what, maybe we can get the conversation back on track and talk about the System of Deb. :)

To be clear about your scenario. Are you saying, "I think her action is wrong, but let her do what she wants?" or "I think her action is permissible, so let her do what she wants?" There's a difference there. The first maybe is like throwing your hands up in a "kids will be kids" way and the second is saying that she certainly has the right to be self-destructive despite others footing the bill.

In the system of Deb she has, in your words, the right to be self destructive. End. The who pays the bill is a whole nuther ball of wax. Or is it OK for rich people to be sel destructive but not the less fortunate? Should the surgeon give the rich alcoholic the new liver?

I cannot as an individual decide the wrongness of her actions. She's allergic to cats. It makes her asthma worse. So might going out to get bread. It is her life.

Does this make me a blue eyed libertarian?

02/22/2011 04:00:19 PM · #456

Originally posted by Melethia:

Should the surgeon give the rich alcoholic the new liver?

Just as an aside, this does not happen as a part of normal medicine in our country and if it did it would be a serious breech of medical ethics and could cost someone their license. If we want to start talking about black-market organs and foreign countries, then that's something else, but try not to have this impression of normal doctors in this country.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/22/2011 04:01:38 PM · #457

Originally posted by Melethia:

In the system of Deb she has, in your words, the right to be self destructive. End.

So there are no limits on this? No other considerations? Or are you just speaking within the confines of this specific case?

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/22/2011 04:03:07 PM · #458

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Should the surgeon give the rich alcoholic the new liver?

Just as an aside, this does not happen as a part of normal medicine in our country and if it did it would be a serious breech of medical ethics and could cost someone their license. If we want to start talking about black-market organs and foreign countries, then that's something else, but try not to have this impression of normal doctors in this country.

Strictly true, Doc. But you would concede that in the United States the rich alcoholic is much more likely to even be on the queue for a new liver than the poor alcoholic, yes? We do effectively ration health care in the United States by economic status, so Melethia's broader point stands.

02/22/2011 04:04:01 PM · #459

Really? I did think that, particularly with the richly famous, so I'm pleased to be wrong.

By the way, my answer about Jazmin would be different were she my personal friend. Then I would meddle if I could see for myself it would matter. Still her choice in the end but I'd meddle. :)

02/22/2011 04:05:47 PM · #460

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
In the system of Deb she has, in your words, the right to be self destructive. End.

So there are no limits on this? No other considerations? Or are you just speaking within the confines of this specific case?

What did I miss and/or where are you leading? Are we doing slippery slope stuff?

02/22/2011 04:11:36 PM · #461

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Should the surgeon give the rich alcoholic the new liver?

Just as an aside, this does not happen as a part of normal medicine in our country and if it did it would be a serious breech of medical ethics and could cost someone their license. If we want to start talking about black-market organs and foreign countries, then that's something else, but try not to have this impression of normal doctors in this country.

Strictly true, Doc. But you would concede that in the United States the rich alcoholic is much more likely to even be on the queue for a new liver than the poor alcoholic, yes? We do effectively ration health care in the United States by economic status, so Melethia's broader point stands.

In ways, yes, but by my anecdotal experience, I have seen just as many medicare/medicaid transplants as others (but this is going back to med school and/or residency). Private insurance has its own issues and the financial cost of the transplant is still borne by others (its just less mandatory, I guess).

02/22/2011 04:13:12 PM · #462

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
In the system of Deb she has, in your words, the right to be self destructive. End.

So there are no limits on this? No other considerations? Or are you just speaking within the confines of this specific case?

What did I miss and/or where are you leading? Are we doing slippery slope stuff?

No, not really. I'm just asking. Does the system of Deb have a "rule" "One has the right to self-destructive behavior. End."? I'm guessing you wouldn't say a bus driver can run his full bus off a cliff. That is an obvious example, but Jazmin is much more subtle. It easy to say, "yes" to an example where there is no outward effects, and easy to say "no" where the effects are obvious, but in our society it may ultimately be hard to demonstrate actions that have no effect on others. Does that make the System of Deb or another like Liberty less applicable? or just harder to decide what's what?

And we should assume you are friends with the subject. Otherwise it's too easy just to say, "no comment".

Message edited by author 2011-02-22 16:16:30.

02/22/2011 04:18:51 PM · #463

Yeah, running a bus off a cliff hurts others. Driving drunk hurts others. Don't hurt others.

Even in the world of Jason there are gray areas. I responded to the situation you provided. Change the situation and my response may change. Not a bot. (Typing on phone, not being short to be rude.)

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/22/2011 04:28:03 PM · #464

Originally posted by Melethia:

I understand. But would you say that utilizing public resources hurts others? In fact, to be even more explicit. In Oregon, the public health plan is a rationed system. All diagnoses patients can have are listed from 1 to five hundred something. Every two years the bean counters decide, we have this much money, we can cover down to diagnosis 285 or 240 or whatever. If your diagnosis is above the list, you are covered. If it is below, you are out of luck. Asthma is a covered diagnosis. Jazmin's actions cost the state money in repeated admissions, meds, ER visits. So, Jazmin's actions are directly (though in a small way) keeping someone else from coverage that is just below the line. Does she still have the moral right to self-destructive behavior? End?

Message edited by author 2011-02-22 16:29:01.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/22/2011 04:31:23 PM · #465

Originally posted by scalvert:

Hey, where are all those people who don't believe in Bigfoot? I'm just trying to understand how people who don't believe in Bigfoot would handle this hypothetical moral dilemma. Honest! It's an innocent call for understanding since I can't grasp how anyone not using the sacred cave art of Bigfoot as their moral compass can have a basis for opinion here, yadayadayada...

That's SUCH a load of BS, Shannon.

There's nothing arbitrary about his question. If you believe, as Doc does, that our sense of morality comes to us from God, and if you are faced with a group of people who are avowedly atheistic and staunchly maintain THEIR sense of morality is every bit as valid as the religiously-rooted one, then why is it wrong of him to attempt to engage these atheists in discussion of the roots of their own, particular moralities? Or, for that matter, to discuss what those individual moralities may have, and not have, in common?

Why do you have to hop in and trivialize this reasonable man by figuratively gibbering like a chimpanzee, jumping up and down and ridiculing an honest question with an absurd parallel?

R.

02/22/2011 04:35:32 PM · #466

Look out, he's gonna throw his feces!!! :)

I'm having a good talk with Deb and nothing bad has happened so far. If suddenly something untoward happens then everybody can crow, "see, I told you so!!!!"

02/22/2011 04:48:41 PM · #467

My answer still stands in your specific example. Who pays is, in my system, a separate issue. Then one must ask bureaucrats to "play God" and draw the line in the sand. Do the best they can with what they have. Health care really is a have/have not situation moreso than a moral dilemma.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/22/2011 04:54:39 PM · #468

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Hey, where are all those people who don't believe in Bigfoot? I'm just trying to understand how people who don't believe in Bigfoot would handle this hypothetical moral dilemma. Honest! It's an innocent call for understanding since I can't grasp how anyone not using the sacred cave art of Bigfoot as their moral compass can have a basis for opinion here, yadayadayada...

There's nothing arbitrary about his question. If you believe, as Doc does, that our sense of morality comes to us from God, and if you are faced with a group of people who are avowedly atheistic and staunchly maintain THEIR sense of morality is every bit as valid as the religiously-rooted one, then why is it wrong of him to attempt to engage these atheists in discussion of the roots of their own, particular moralities? Or, for that matter, to discuss what those individual moralities may have, and not have, in common?

Whoosh... right over his head.

02/22/2011 04:57:12 PM · #469

Originally posted by Melethia:

We may be speaking to two different issues. There is the moral question of Jazmin's actions and the moral question of the healthcare system.

I guess I'm honestly unclear on the juxtaposition of "Don't hurt others" and "it's ok to consume health care resources through self-destructive behavior when it prevents others from getting health care". Wouldn't it make more sense to say, "Jazmin, what you are doing is wrong because you are hurting others through your actions. Someone is not getting coverage for something because they keep spending the money on you."?

02/22/2011 05:01:49 PM · #470

Who pays is not a moral issue. It is a pragmatic one. If Jasmine paid her own health care costs no one would care if she was being self destructive.

02/22/2011 05:11:18 PM · #471

Originally posted by Melethia:

Who pays is not a moral issue. It is a pragmatic one. If Jasmine paid her own health care costs no one would care if she was being self destructive.

True. But she doesn't. So does it change things? The System of Liberty (I don't know about the System of Deb) doesn't guarantee that everybody has the same moral rights. What might be morally right for one person may not be morally right for another.

02/22/2011 05:16:58 PM · #472

The system of Deb oddly separates personal behaviour and actions from the financial model. Not sure why. But she does think the same standard should apply regardless of caste or class and would therefore probably be a lousy Hindu.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/22/2011 05:22:34 PM · #473

Originally posted by Melethia:

Fair enough. How would you summarize it so that I could potentially predict how you might answer a future question?

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/22/2011 05:24:06 PM · #474

Okay, just for s@#%s and giggles, here is my answer:

The libertarian would likely say that any state-sponsored health care system is immoral because it requires the "forced confiscation" of other person's property (aka, money for taxes).

The conservative would likely say that Jasmine's actions are immoral because she is not taking personal responsibility for her conduct.

The liberal would likely say that Jasmine's actions are neither moral nor immoral, since they involve personal behavior which does not directly effect others' personal autonomy and the only direct harm involved is to Jasmine herself.

The animal rights activist might say that Jasmine's actions are moral, because she is putting the needs of the cats before her own.

The bureaucrat would not be concerned with the morality or immorality of the situation, might be concerned with the potential for the inefficient distribution of social capital, but would likely favor no targeted corrective action as the pragmatic considerations of identification and enforcement in such a particularized context would probably require the expenditure of more social resources than would be regained by making the likely small number of people like Jasmine give up their cats.

The atheist would wonder why he was being asked the question as an atheist, since it is unclear what the heck the hypothetical has to do with the question of the existence of God. ;)

Message edited by author 2011-02-22 17:25:40.