Applied Ethics: Universal Health Care
Hi again, this is a brief discussion/lecture about whether or not Universal Health Care is a legal argument, i.e., about "Rights", or whether is a moral argument, i.e., about "Necessity".
It is here where all I can do is point out the arguments, I have no answers. There are no easy answers. That said, I do argue that we cannot even have a clear discussion until we can come to an agreement about whether health care is a legal or moral argument. If the former, laws can say whatever "we" want them to say. Keep in mind, it used to be legal to own certain people, beat your wife, force children to work, etc., etc.
Moral arguments, such as a generally accepted prohibition of "murder/rape" appear to many to exist independent of mere human desires--though I grant this is a problematic argument as well. Nevertheless, if we "agreed" that denying health care was akin to murder, that would clearly shift the arguments.
Anyway, I would love to hear what you all think about this issue. I just saw they are attempting to end the American Health Care Act again, so this is about as relevant as Ethics gets. Enjoy!
upvoted and resteem
check mine too
Thanks. Followed ya. Will check out your posts as well!
Thanks mate 😍😍
@ gigantomachi said
I think it involves elements of; legality in that it requires force to implement (you must forceably take money from one to give to another), ethical for the same reason AND in that in order to "deny" health care to someone, you first must have the capability to provide it (I am pretty sure we don't have the capacity to provide QUALITY healthcare to every single soul AND I'm even LESS sure it is ethical to force SOME folks to forgo quality care for their own families in order to provide EVERYBODY poor quality care), and moral in that each of us must decide in and of ourselves if (and what) our personal principles REQUIRE of us.
We "force" people to pay for all kinds of things, including corporate welfare, so I don't see any argument there. As to the ability to provide "quality" health care, that seems like a very subjective statement at best, i.e., "quality" is not an objective argument. As I discuss in the lecture, there is way too much equivocation between law and ethics, as those two are not equivocal per se.
Not sure what you mean by "don't see any argument there" so I am going to assume you mean you don't think legality is a useful line of inquiry and respond: So, because we already use force (welfare, corporate or otherwise (and etc)) then there are no legalities involved in using yet more (different, additional, etc) force ????
Life IS subjective. And ONE of the problems with "philosophy" is that (some) (so-called) "philosophers" seem to think that it doesnot (and/or should not) have any practical (read: subjective) use.
BUT (and it is a big but :-) even so, I can assure that there are MANY measures and "quality indicators" (read: objective as humans are able to achieve - which is another discussion:-) of "quality" regarding healthcare that CAN easily be applied - one simple one off the top of my head (and therefore possibly valueless) might be average Non-ER wait time.
(again I may be misunderstanding your point but whaddayado :-) LIFE is messy (read: not a philosophy classroom) - doesn't mean there is no value in normal humans discussing them in the context of everyday life and "mixing it up" a little. Also doesn't mean they (law and ethics) SHOULDN'T be "ALL up in each others bidness" :-). Humans LOVE to (arbitrarily) carve/separate the spectra of reality (life) up into nice, discrete, little individual categories that SEEMINGLY make it "easier to manage" - but sometimes our "hearts" lead astray.
But that is another whole nuther argument :-)
Ha, just came across this. Right in our wheelhouse:
http://www.nature.com/news/one-size-fits-all-threshold-for-p-values-under-fire-1.22625?WT.mc_id=FBK_NA_1709_FHNEWSNEWPVALUE_PORTFOLIO
Again, I know you don't want to actually listen to the video, but I discuss the reasoning behind all these claims there. And no one is saying there is no "value" in human "norms", we are asking WHERE those norms came from, who they represent, and to what degree--if any--they should even be called "norms".
Also, and I cannot stress this enough, there are NO morals in legal arguments per se. Until that is fully understood, round and round we go.
Problem is, unless we are clear and what is meant by "philosophy", using it remains problematic at best. And the claim is NOT that we can ever "know" absolutely, quite the opposite. Rather, insofar as we are always already cut off from such knowledge, how do we "use" reason--philosophy to some degree--in how we determine issues such as right/wrong.
Bottom line, simply wanting to "use" something does not imply an actual understanding of what is being "used". Right?
Since "reason" (and philosophy) will ALWAYS be dependent upon perspective, worldview, beliefs, socialization, etc and it can NEVER result in complete certainty, the best we can do (in my opinion) is provide everyone a "voice", educate where possible and agree to be bound by majority opinion (even if we personally think it errs) and "wing it" while ever correcting.
Until/unless we don't need external rule (rule ourselves) the only reasonable option is rule by a majority (largely because what's the option: rule of the many by the one (or few)? No thanks, give me the plebes any day).
Right. Wanting to use something does not imply understanding that something. Just as you don't need to understand (all of) geometry to square your doorframe using the pythagorean theorem.
Philosophy is a method, closer to science than a general worldview. In fact, that is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes made in terms of understanding what philosophy can/cannot "do". And "reason" understood as something closer to the mathematical--which appears to have NOTHING to do with worldviews--also undermines the attempt to make all things relative.
That said, if all things ARE relative, including 2+2=4, then all things goes, Nietzsche wins, and only the weak desire silly things such as peace, caring, etc.
Again, this is the theme that runs throughout my courses, and is the main "reason" one cannot simply listen/watch one video, one must hear the entire "story".
And Pythagoreanism aside, I ain't gonna hire some dumbass to square a door frame either. Moreover, "squaring" is yet another mathematical phenomenon that challenges desires to limit "reason" to a mere worldview.