| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2011 10:08:39 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Call me harsh but when someone is the author of their own suffering, it only stands to reason that they be called upon to take the appropriate remedial action or absorb the costs. |
Does that philosophy apply across the board? What if Jazmin's problem is she can't afford to have any children but decides to have three anyway? As a result she goes on public assistance. She works hard, but can't make ends meet. Technically it's her fault. So should she be forced to quit having children or put the ones she already has up for adoption in order to keep the public assistance? |
I will assume you missed the word "incremental" that I do believe plays a significant part of my post.
If one continues to demonstrate bad judgement, and engage in activities that are detrimental to their well being, the I really do believe they need to absorb the cost for their mistakes.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 10:11:58 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Call me harsh but when someone is the author of their own suffering, it only stands to reason that they be called upon to take the appropriate remedial action or absorb the costs. |
Does that philosophy apply across the board? What if Jazmin's problem is she can't afford to have any children but decides to have three anyway? As a result she goes on public assistance. She works hard, but can't make ends meet. Technically it's her fault. So should she be forced to quit having children, put the ones she already has up for adoption or risk being cut off from public assistance? |
It DOES start to get kind of messy when you go down that road. Slippery-slope wise, you end up with people getting, at all levels, not just medical, exactly what they can afford and nothing more. But we've all seen the figures regarding what an obscene percentage of America's wealth is concentrated in what tiny percentage of the populace. I think we've actually pretty much attained levels that haven't been seen since feudal times, though that my be hyperbolic of me.
Regarding Ray's idea that users-of-wilderness make a deposit towards possible need for rescue, said deposit to be refundable if rescue was not required: such a system, to be workable, would necessitate such a large deposit that access to wilderness would be restricted to those who have plenty of disposable income. Instead, we have a system where taxes paid by all of us provide services (fire, police, wilderness rescue, whatever) needed by few, but urgently. Alternatively, of course, we could do away witht hat service altogether, provide NO rescue personnel and allow people to die if they can't get out under their own power.
I mean, really... We've got to examine where we stand very carefully. As long as we have insurance companies, for example, do we really want to give them even MORE license to say "Sorry, but that is at-risk behavior and we will not cover the consequences of it?" So if I get in accident when driving over the speed limit, I am denied medical coverage because "it was your fault, after all!"?
I know I'm being hyperbolic, but this is kind of touchy ground here.
R. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 10:24:16 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Call me harsh but when someone is the author of their own suffering, it only stands to reason that they be called upon to take the appropriate remedial action or absorb the costs. |
Does that philosophy apply across the board? What if Jazmin's problem is she can't afford to have any children but decides to have three anyway? As a result she goes on public assistance. She works hard, but can't make ends meet. Technically it's her fault. So should she be forced to quit having children or put the ones she already has up for adoption in order to keep the public assistance? |
I will assume you missed the word "incremental" that I do believe plays a significant part of my post.
If one continues to demonstrate bad judgement, and engage in activities that are detrimental to their well being, the I really do believe they need to absorb the cost for their mistakes.
Ray |
Ok so the second and third child would trigger an incremental fee, which I'm guessing would be a reduction in her public assistance. Wouldn't that make things worse?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 10:34:47 PM · #379 |
If one continues to demonstrate bad judgement, and engage in activities that are detrimental to their well being, the I really do believe they need to absorb the cost for their mistakes.
Ray [/quote]
Originally posted by yanko:
Ok so the second and third child would trigger an incremental fee, which I'm guessing would be a reduction in her public assistance. Wouldn't that make things worse? |
Actually, one would hope that an informed individual would not get themselves into such a predicament.
I don't know about anyone else, but on a personal basis I did not marry until such time as I could assume the responsibilities associated with marriage, and we had children that we could afford to raise and educate.
There truly is no mystery in being able to plan ahead.
Ray
Message edited by author 2011-02-20 08:23:51. |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 11:00:38 PM · #380 |
| I think this is a really interesting discussion, but one point I think that is being missed (except Ed mentioned it), is whether the action is moral? If one judges actions by their impact on others, does exacting a societal cost (be it financial) place restrictions on the liberty one is afforded under the DPC Liberty moral system? |
|
|
|
02/19/2011 11:31:55 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It DOES start to get kind of messy when you go down that road. Slippery-slope wise, you end up with people getting, at all levels, not just medical, exactly what they can afford and nothing more. But we've all seen the figures regarding what an obscene percentage of America's wealth is concentrated in what tiny percentage of the populace. I think we've actually pretty much attained levels that haven't been seen since feudal times, though that my be hyperbolic of me. |
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Cries for equality and fairness led to our sovereignty, but today are met with contempt from those who would actually welcome a return to Jeffersonian times. They would rather live under the banner of the ideal than the society which dared to practice it.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2011 11:57:25 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
No more medications/insurance/etc. She's responsible for everything, including her eventual probable death. |
Presumably this reasoning applies to cigarette smokers?
R. |
Yes, but we really ought to consider providing some form of assistance to help smokers quit. We help drug addicts, why not smokers.
Ray |
1-800-No-Butts is the toll-free number for the California Smokers' Helpline, where they can get advice, information, support, and referrals for treatment. I don't know whether smoking-cessation aids (patches, gum, etc.) are covered by MediCal/Medicaid at this time, but I believe they have been in the past.
One problem is that governments have a vested interest in the tobacco business because of the taxes it brings in, though these are largely offset by the medical costs.
Challenge: Name the worlds's biggest tobacco company (without looking it up) |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 12:36:11 AM · #383 |
Chinese Government.
Heard it on NPR... ;)
Message edited by author 2011-02-20 00:36:23. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 12:45:01 AM · #384 |
I should have exempted health professionals ... ;-)
BTW: Are there desensitization shots (or other viable therapies) available for your hypothetical patient's cat allergy? I'm not sure your example really lays out all the possible options in the situation. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 01:26:56 AM · #385 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I should have exempted health professionals ... ;-)
BTW: Are there desensitization shots (or other viable therapies) available for your hypothetical patient's cat allergy? I'm not sure your example really lays out all the possible options in the situation. |
There are, but no guarantee of success for asthma. In fact, out of control asthma is somewhat of a contraindication for immunotherapy as the risks go up. Personally I would not start a person like this on IT.
The question remains whether the tendrils of human services can cast certain activities in a different moral light based on the cost they exact? |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 07:40:44 AM · #386 |
| You all do understand that a lot of these things already work on what could be called an incremental system. If you need a liver transplant and are an alcoholic, you're not getting a liver. They will let you die. Also if you ever were a drug addict they will not give you a liver. I know two people that they let die for just those reasons. One was a 40 year old single mother. As for welfare, when you sign up for it (at least in NJ) you must sign a waiver that any more children will not result in you receiving any more money. Period. If you are pregnant at that time of sign up that child will be covered, but other than that your family is essentially frozen. If you have more kids, it's on you. As for the lady with the cats, I also know of many people that have been denied coverage for many stupid things, it's always been at the insurance companies whim. Most people don't know to appeal and will accept the decision. I had another friend who died as a result of a denial from an insurance company for what they thought was a stupid recurring problem. Turned out to be cancer and she died within weeks of her denial. She was in her 20's and her children were 3 & 5 years old. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 05:58:46 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moral dilemma of the week:
Jazmin is a young, severe asthmatic who is allergic to cats. She owns four cats at home. Her FeNO, a marker of allergic lung inflammation is very high at 105. Jazmin's asthma is frequently out of control and she utilizes lots of medication, makes frequent trips to the ER and is admitted to the hospital many times a year. Jazmin has state insurance funded by tax dollars.
Let us consider the moral framework I will dub "DPC Liberty" (primary axiom: All actions are permissible as long as they are not harmful to others). Would Jazmin's owning cats be considered moral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is correct), immoral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is incorrect), or amoral (DPC Liberty cannot help inform us or declares the action to be without a moral dimension)? |
I'd say it's just stupid. |
|
|
|
02/20/2011 08:30:12 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'd say it's just stupid. |
Of course it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that determination... :) The question at hand: If your stupidity affects others in a financial way, is it acceptable behavior? |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:10:54 AM · #389 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'd say it's just stupid. |
Of course it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that determination... :) The question at hand: If your stupidity affects others in a financial way, is it acceptable behavior? |
It is impossible to say whether it is morally "correct" or not. You deliberately balanced the competing factors: the answers depend on your subjective worldview, not on any objective morality.
Our society promotes the rights of the individual to act within certain boundaries, and we find it socially beneficial and acceptable for the costs to be shared. Our society also says that there are limits to the rights of the individual, balanced against the cost to society as a whole.
Here, it is certainly selfish and unwise for the person to keep the cats - but as a society we don't generally stop people doing relatively benign things that they like to do simply because they impose an additional burden on social structures that are there for everyone.
So is it moral? If you are a raging conservative, then it is immoral for anyone to have desires that impose indirect costs on you (unless your desires happen to coincide - when it becomes moral...). If you are socially minded, then it is morally correct for the state to pick up everyone's foibles on the basis that they roughly balance out. If you are liberal/libertarian, then it is unacceptable to impose unnecessary restrictions on personal choice.
These are all accurate moral analyses and none of them are objectively "right" (unless you subscribe to the view that god is perfect, his view would be perfect, and that he would take a view).
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 12:14:51 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'd say it's just stupid. |
Of course it is, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that determination... :) The question at hand: If your stupidity affects others in a financial way, is it acceptable behavior? |
It is impossible to say whether it is morally "correct" or not. You deliberately balanced the competing factors: the answers depend on your subjective worldview, not on any objective morality. |
I gave the assumed subjective worldview: "DPC liberty". Many conversations lead many DPC members to the position that "all things are permissible that do not hurt others". I was curious as to how flexible this "do not hurt others" is. Does it only mean physical harm? psychological harm? finanical harm?
The scenario is purposely difficult. No worldview worth its salt only informs simple scenarios. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 02:46:26 PM · #391 |
Wrong thread perhaps, but what's the Christian view on the allergic woman keeping cats?
If you are a raging conservative, then it is immoral for anyone to have desires that impose indirect costs on you (unless your desires happen to coincide - when it becomes moral...).
This would be funnier if it didn't ring so true at times.
Of course, I don't like paying taxes so your children can go to school, but I pay them anyway for the greater good. Why can't all you child-producing people take care of your own kids? (Before anyone shoots back, please note that my tongue is firmly planted in cheek, but I have been househunting and the taxes here are astronomical.) |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 04:03:34 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
... I have been househunting and the taxes here are astronomical.) |
And yet your neighbors who have owned their houses for the last 20 years will be paying 1/4 the property taxes as you will. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:03:37 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Wrong thread perhaps, but what's the Christian view on the allergic woman keeping cats?
If you are a raging conservative, then it is immoral for anyone to have desires that impose indirect costs on you (unless your desires happen to coincide - when it becomes moral...).
This would be funnier if it didn't ring so true at times.
Of course, I don't like paying taxes so your children can go to school, but I pay them anyway for the greater good. Why can't all you child-producing people take care of your own kids? (Before anyone shoots back, please note that my tongue is firmly planted in cheek, but I have been househunting and the taxes here are astronomical.) |
Let us all firmly remind ourselves that "conservative" does not equal "Christian"... |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:17:07 PM · #394 |
I didn't ask for conservative. :-) I only quoted Matthew's bit because it is rather humorous.
I just don't know why an "atheist" view is being requested (or perhaps it isn't - perhaps this has moved on to political views) when a "Christian" view was not. Nothing leading or implied, just curious.
(Says the old woman with cats.... I'm not allergic to them, though.) |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:57:55 PM · #395 |
But seriously, Doc - what does any of this have to do with atheism?
Melethia's question is valid. What would be the "Christian response" to your so-called moral dilemma? Is there a biblical resolution for whether the hypothetical is moral/immoral/amoral?
If not, why would you expect there to be an "atheist response" to a hypothetical that pointedly involves no issue as to the existence or non-existence of a diety/supernatural force?
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:05:05 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Melethia:
... I have been househunting and the taxes here are astronomical.) |
And yet your neighbors who have owned their houses for the last 20 years will be paying 1/4 the property taxes as you will. |
That's not how it works in Texas. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:27:47 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
But seriously, Doc - what does any of this have to do with atheism?
Melethia's question is valid. What would be the "Christian response" to your so-called moral dilemma? Is there a biblical resolution for whether the hypothetical is moral/immoral/amoral?
If not, why would you expect there to be an "atheist response" to a hypothetical that pointedly involves no issue as to the existence or non-existence of a diety/supernatural force? |
This has to do with the positions of the people on this site who happen to be atheists. I know y'all hate to be lumped, but it would be tedious to start threads for everybody. "?s about shutterpuppy but were afraid to ask" "?s about yanko but were afraid to ask".
I think it's completely fair for Deb to ask my my opinion and I'll give one after others have weighed in. One thing I've noticed is that lots of people on this site become strangely silent about questions like this but are more than happy to speak up when knocking someone else's view down. If I post my own view the conversation will quickly change to be purely about how my view is wrong.
I'll look back at the conversation again, but I do believe Ed was the only one to directly answer the question. I'll edit if that was wrong.
EDIT: Matthew gave it a go, but sorta sidestepped the complete question (which asked one to look through
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 19:34:09. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:31:46 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I just don't know why an "atheist" view is being requested (or perhaps it isn't - perhaps this has moved on to political views) when a "Christian" view was not. |
Requesting an atheist view of something is like asking for the response of people who don't believe in Horus, Zeus, Odin or several thousand other entities that Jason doesn't believe in either. There is no commonality other than that disbelief. The question only makes sense from the perspective of the Zeus or Horus follower who can't imagine how people can possibly behave themselves without following the guidelines of that deity. You would think the mere observation that both civilized and barbaric cultures have existed under each (and none) of these beliefs would be sufficient to dispel the notion that decent behavior is a product of religion, but alas... |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:33:07 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I just don't know why an "atheist" view is being requested (or perhaps it isn't - perhaps this has moved on to political views) when a "Christian" view was not. |
Requesting an atheist view of something is like asking for the response of people who don't believe in Horus, Zeus, Odin or several thousand other entities that Jason doesn't believe in either. There is no commonality other than that disbelief. The question only makes sense from the perspective of the Zeus or Horus follower who can't imagine how people can possibly behave themselves without following the guidelines of that deity. You would think the mere observation that both civilized and barbaric cultures have existed under each (and none) of these beliefs would be sufficient to dispel the notion that decent behavior is a product of religion, but alas... |
Hey, look who isn't reading...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let us consider the moral framework I will dub "DPC Liberty" (primary axiom: All actions are permissible as long as they are not harmful to others). Would Jazmin's owning cats be considered moral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is correct), immoral (DPC Liberty can inform us on the action and says that it is incorrect), or amoral (DPC Liberty cannot help inform us or declares the action to be without a moral dimension)? |
Did I mention "atheist" even once? |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:35:16 PM · #400 |
| What's it doing in this thread then? |
|
