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

[Sparko]

Sure, you can believe that if you want, but my point is that God isn't necessary for you to behave in a way that we think of as good. There are logical, practical, reasons for "thinking our behaviors to be either good or evil" and none of those reasons necessitate God to be their source.

God or an objective idea of morality is needed for there to be a concept of "good" in the first place. If a society decides to enslave black people, is that good? They must think so or they would not do it, right? But is it actually good? Or is it wrong and those people just are blinded to its wrongness? Is there an actual objective idea of "slavery is not good" that morality can appeal to? or is it just subjective nonsense? If it is subjective nonsense, then what I believe is good is all that matters. I could believe that murdering everyone I see is good, and it would be so.

[Joel]

Healthcare (as with education) is recognised as a basic human right by every advanced nation in the world.

Just goes to show how illogical nations are.
(That is, I pointed out the illogic earlier in this thread.)

[Sparko]

if they said healthcare was a basic human privilege it would be more accurate. It is not a right. But I think everyone should have access to it.

The poor are not actually the problem in the USA - at least for urgent care. Hospitals have to give treatment if you can't afford it. The problem is with longterm care and being just above poverty, where they don't have to give you healthcare for free, but you can't actually afford it either.

[Meh Gerbil]

Healthcare (as with education) is recognised as a basic human right by every advanced nation in the world.

That is especially true when 'advanced nation' is defined as a nation that recognizes healthcare as a right.
That foolishness aside, I wish all you guys who want to give away all this stuff would define some of the limits.

I think it is rather easy, bordering on intellectual laziness, to simply be for buying everyone everything without defining limits.

I'm for a $75 dollar minimum wage and free high end sports cars for all drivers.
If you're against that you're a greedy pig.

^---- Sometimes that is what it feels like to argue with a liberal.

[JimL]

wrong. they are relative to the individual. to make them better people. when you have a society of better people, you have a better society.

Again, you are just, unknowingly, making my point for me. Thank you.

[JimL]

God or an objective idea of morality is needed for there to be a concept of "good" in the first place. If a society decides to enslave black people, is that good? They must think so or they would not do it, right? But is it actually good? Or is it wrong and those people just are blinded to its wrongness? Is there an actual objective idea of "slavery is not good" that morality can appeal to? or is it just subjective nonsense? If it is subjective nonsense, then what I believe is good is all that matters. I could believe that murdering everyone I see is good, and it would be so.

The objective idea of morality needed for there to be a concept of "good" is that moral idea which best serves the interests of society and therefore, being that society is comprised of human beings, the best interests of individuals belonging to that society. There need be no external source in order that moral laws serve the best interests of humanity. Murder, rape, theft etc etc are not behaviors that are in the best interests of human beings who live in community with one another. Do you need those morals to come from a God in order to understand them to be "good?" No you don't.

[JimL]

if they said healthcare was a basic human privilege it would be more accurate. It is not a right. But I think everyone should have access to it.

The poor are not actually the problem in the USA - at least for urgent care. Hospitals have to give treatment if you can't afford it. The problem is with longterm care and being just above poverty, where they don't have to give you healthcare for free, but you can't actually afford it either.

A privilege is a right, if as a society we determine it to be so. You need to explain what you mean by "everyone should have access healthcare." Access is meaningless if only wealthy people can't afford it.

[seer]

A privilege is a right, if as a society we determine it to be so. You need to explain what you mean by "everyone should have access healthcare." Access is meaningless if only wealthy people can't afford it.

Jim most rights like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search are not paid for by someone else. If I want to protest something I don't make the government pay for my time and materials with the tax dollars of others, I don't make you pay for my hunting rifles.

[Sparko]

The objective idea of morality needed for there to be a concept of "good" is that moral idea which best serves the interests of society and therefore, being that society is comprised of human beings, the best interests of individuals belonging to that society. There need be no external source in order that moral laws serve the best interests of humanity. Murder, rape, theft etc etc are not behaviors that are in the best interests of human beings who live in community with one another. Do you need those morals to come from a God in order to understand them to be "good?" No you don't.

So your answer is that it is subjective nonsense? Let me try again - try to answer the following specifically:

If a society decides to enslave black people, is that good?

They must think so or they would not do it, right? But is it actually good?

Or is it wrong and those people just are blinded to its wrongness?


Is there an actual objective idea of "slavery is not good" that morality can appeal to?


or is it just subjective nonsense?


Is slavery actually bad? or just because our society thinks it is?


When the Nazi society thought it was good to rid themselves of the Jewish people and purify their race, they thought it was good. They didn't say "hey let's be evil and murder people!"
So according to your view of morality, they were doing actual good because that is what their society believed, right?

[JimL]

So your answer is that it is subjective nonsense? Let me try again - try to answer the following specifically:

If a society decides to enslave black people, is that good?

They must think so or they would not do it, right? But is it actually good?

Or is it wrong and those people just are blinded to its wrongness?


Is there an actual objective idea of "slavery is not good" that morality can appeal to?


or is it just subjective nonsense?


Is slavery actually bad? or just because our society thinks it is?


When the Nazi society thought it was good to rid themselves of the Jewish people and purify their race, they thought it was good. They didn't say "hey let's be evil and murder people!"
So according to your view of morality, they were doing actual good because that is what their society believed, right?

No, it has nothing to do with what any one person might think, it has only to do with what is true whether anyone thinks it or not. Like you said earlier "If I think it is good to murder eveyone I see, then murder is good?"
Wrong! It doesn't matter what you personally believe, what matters is what is true, and what is true is that murder is neither good for you or anyone else as a member of society.

[Sparko]

A privilege is a right, if as a society we determine it to be so. You need to explain what you mean by "everyone should have access healthcare." Access is meaningless if only wealthy people can't afford it.

a right is something you intrinsically have. It can only be taken away or infringed upon. otherwise you just have it. You have the right to free speech, unless someone takes it away. someone doesn't have to give it to you. A privilege is something you 'deserve' because of your status, but it has to be given to you, you don't just have it intrinsically and it can be taken away at a whim too. You have the privilege to drive a car. As long as you get a license, and you obey the laws they impose on you. They can take that privilege away any time they want to. You don't have a right to drive, but in a civilized society you can argue that all citizens deserve the privilege to be able to drive.

Healthcare is the same thing. You don't have it automagically (unless you are a doctor I guess and own a hospital) - it has to be paid for and given to you. I think an argument can be made that all citizens in a free country deserve healthcare, at least at a basic level. and that is the way it is now. If you are hurt or dying the hospital is required to treat you even if you cannot pay.

[JimL]

Jim most rights like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search are not paid for by someone else. If I want to protest something I don't make the government pay for my time and materials with the tax dollars of others, I don't make you pay for my hunting rifles.

So what, if as a society we believe that health care should be a right and thus be subsidized by the government, then so be it. You pay for it anyway when someone without health Insurance ends up in the emergency room. Do you want a government thats subsidizes emergency room care, or one that just allows people to die because they can't afford to pay for the care?

[Joel]

So what, if as a society we believe that health care should be a right and thus be subsidized by the government, then so be it. You pay for it anyway when someone without health Insurance ends up in the emergency room. Do you want a government thats subsidizes emergency room care, or one that just allows people to die because they can't afford to pay for the care?

You seem to keep shifting between a kind of objectivism and a kind of subjectivism. On the one hand you say that morality is objectively determined by what is in the best interests of society. On the one hand you think you say a right (and we were talking about "basic human rights", not mere statutory rights) is something a society can decide or believe that it should be so. And/or you are shifting the definition of "right".

[Sparko]

No, it has nothing to do with what any one person might think, it has only to do with what is true whether anyone thinks it or not. Like you said earlier "If I think it is good to murder eveyone I see, then murder is good?"
Wrong! It doesn't matter what you personally believe, what matters is what is true, and what is true is that murder is neither good for you or anyone else as a member of society.

JimL, your refusal to deal with the actual examples I asked you about shows that you don't even believe your own idea.

And your post above shows that clearly, that you don't believe that morals are just rules made up by society. You just admitted that what anyone believes doesn't matter, that would include "society" - what matters is if it is "true" that something it good or bad. You are appealing to an objective standard. That murder is bad because it is true that murder is bad no matter what a person believes about it, or what a society believes about it. It is intrinsically bad. Objectively bad. You just appealed to a higher standard than "just what people decide"

Welcome to believing in God. Even if you don't recognize it. yet.

[JimL]

You seem to keep shifting between a kind of objectivism and a kind of subjectivism. On the one hand you say that morality is objectively determined by what is in the best interests of society. On the one hand you think you say a right (and we were talking about "basic human rights", not mere statutory rights) is something a society can decide or believe that it should be so. And/or you are shifting the definition of "right".

The fact that a behavior that is not in the best interests of society, and therefore not in the best intersts of the human beings that comprise that society, makes that behavior objectively evil, or vice versa, if a behavior is in the best interests of society, and therefore in the best interests of human beings comprising that society, that would make that behavior objectively good, but that objectivity is relative to society and to human beings and therefore though objective with respect to human society, needs no outside source from which it need be grounded, and or a god.
Why does it make it objective you ask? It is objective, because no matter what ones opinion is of the moral against say, murder, rape, theft, etc etc., whether they think the allowance of those behaviors to be in the best interests of human society, they would be wrong.