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

[Meh Gerbil]

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...

So when a volcano wipes out a village that is evil?
What if God ordering the slaughter of a tribe was in the best long terms interests of mankind, would that be good?

[JimL]

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"

You fail to comprehend. I never said that morals are just made up rules, morals are found, not made up. What any one person believes does not matter, because that which is in the best interests of society and therefore in the best interests of human beings comprising that society, is in their best interests whether they understand it or not. Thats an objective standard, but the standard is relative to human society and needs no outside source. The moral against murder is in everyones interests that doesn't want to be murdered, and therefore it is objectively true that a society with a moral against murder is in everyones interest. Etc. Ect.

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

No need of God to decide what behaviors are in the best interests of human society, behaviors are either in societies best interests or they are not, regardless of their source.

[Bill the Cat]

You fail to comprehend. I never said that morals are just made up rules, morals are found, not made up. What any one person believes does not matter, because that which is in the best interests of society and therefore in the best interests of human beings comprising that society, is in their best interests whether they understand it or not. Thats an objective standard, but the standard is relative to human society and needs no outside source. The moral against murder is in everyones interests that doesn't want to be murdered, and therefore it is objectively true that a society with a moral against murder is in everyones interest. Etc. Ect.

No it isn't. If murder solved a problem of rampant overpopulation, it would be morally ok.

[JimL]

So when a volcano wipes out a village that is evil?

Volcano's aren't agents, they don't choose their behavior, so their behavior has nothing to do with morality.

What if God ordering the slaughter of a tribe was in the best long terms interests of mankind, would that be good?

Humans murdering each other is not in the best interests of human society. Killing for the purposes of self defense is not immoral. But, if you believe that morals are objective and that they come from god, then it would be a contradiction for god to order humans to murder.

[Joel]

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.

Okay, so then it follows that even if the society were to decide that there is a right to rape others, they would be incorrect. They might incorrectly believe that it is in the best interests of society, but they'd be incorrect. So then why do you say that something is a right if as a society we decide it to be so? (e.g. your posts #217 and 222). That is ruled out, because it is either a right or it is not, objectively, no matter the collective opinion or decision of society.

And why do you talk about society believing whether something "should be a right" (post 222)? According to your theory, it must be objectively a right (because that is what is in the best interests of society) or it is objectively not a right (because it not the best interests of society). Any talk of "should be a right" would be excluded. It is or it isn't.

[JimL]

Okay, so then it follows that even if the society were to decide that there is a right to rape others, they would be incorrect. They might incorrectly believe that it is in the best interests of society, but they'd be incorrect. So then why do you say that something is a right if as a society we decide it to be so? (e.g. your posts #217 and 222). That is ruled out, because it is either a right or it is not, objectively, no matter the collective opinion or decision of society.

I said that what is morally good is that which is in the best interests of human beings and human society regardless of what is believed or decided. Thats different than legal rights, though they may be associated with morality as well. In post #217 I was speaking of healthcare as a legal right, not necessarily as a moral right, and what I said is that "we as a society determine whether healthcare is a right or not." In other words "healthcare is a right, not a privelege, if as a society we decide it to be so." If we make it a right, then its a right!

And why do you talk about society believing whether something "should be a right" (post 222)? According to your theory, it must be objectively a right (because that is what is in the best interests of society) or it is objectively not a right (because it not the best interests of society). Any talk of "should be a right" would be excluded. It is or it isn't.

Because as a society we get to make the decisions concerning morals and rights, even though we could be wrong, even though our decisions may not be ones that are in the best interests of society, we are the ones who decide. Just because there are objective moral truths or rights in so far as they relate to the best interests of human society doesn't mean we will recognise them.

[Tassman]

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.

It's easy to check the limits, given that virtually every developed nation has universal health care (Australia has had it for over forty years). They all have their own different provisions and limits, but the outcome is that healthcare is available for all...as it should be. Ill health and suffering should not be viewed as an opportunity for corporate profiteering.

[Meh Gerbil]

Killing for the purposes of self defense is not immoral. But, if you believe that morals are objective and that they come from god, then it would be a contradiction for god to order humans to murder.

If one individual can kill another individual for self defense couldn't one society kill another society for self defense?

[Meh Gerbil]

Ill health and suffering should not be viewed as an opportunity for corporate profiteering.

This would be my point exactly.
Our government would engage in corporate profiteering.
A free market can naturally regulate that behavior.

[Sparko]

You fail to comprehend. I never said that morals are just made up rules, morals are found, not made up. What any one person believes does not matter, because that which is in the best interests of society and therefore in the best interests of human beings comprising that society, is in their best interests whether they understand it or not. Thats an objective standard, but the standard is relative to human society and needs no outside source. The moral against murder is in everyones interests that doesn't want to be murdered, and therefore it is objectively true that a society with a moral against murder is in everyones interest. Etc. Ect.

No need of God to decide what behaviors are in the best interests of human society, behaviors are either in societies best interests or they are not, regardless of their source.

Murder is in someone's best interest because it allows them to take the other person's possessions, or to stop them from harming them, to take power, or to keep a secret, or any number of other 'benefits' - That is why people do it and it is so common. That is why armies kill each other, why governments assassinate leaders. Murder is very popular in most societies and has many, many benefits. So why is it immoral?

[Joel]

...Thats different than legal rights, though they may be associated with morality as well. In post #217 I was speaking of healthcare as a legal right, not necessarily as a moral right, and what I said is that "we as a society determine whether healthcare is a right or not." In other words "healthcare is a right, not a privelege, if as a society we decide it to be so." If we make it a right, then its a right!

Ah, there is the source of the miscommunication. The problem was that the context of your post #217 is that people were talking not about legal rights but about "basic human rights".

Because as a society we get to make the decisions concerning morals and rights, even though we could be wrong, even though our decisions may not be ones that are in the best interests of society, we are the ones who decide. Just because there are objective moral truths or rights in so far as they relate to the best interests of human society doesn't mean we will recognise them.

Okay I see what you are saying, but that use of "make a decisions" seems misleading at best. As a friendly suggestion, I suggest using different language for that in the future. Like, we don't say that we make a decision about whether the earth is round or flat. That language would make it sound like we are saying that a person could decide either way and thus make it so. "Making a decision" regarding what is moral makes it sound like you are denying objective morality. When talking about objective truths, "making a judgement" is perhaps better terminology. It better indicates the idea of trying to discover/apprehend what is the truth, as opposed to your decision causing something to become true.

[Sparko]

Ah, there is the source of the miscommunication. The problem was that the context of your post #217 is that people were talking not about legal rights but about "basic human rights".


Okay I see what you are saying, but that use of "make a decisions" seems misleading at best. As a friendly suggestion, I suggest using different language for that in the future. Like, we don't say that we make a decision about whether the earth is round or flat. That language would make it sound like we are saying that a person could decide either way and thus make it so. "Making a decision" regarding what is moral makes it sound like you are denying objective morality. When talking about objective truths, "making a judgement" is perhaps better terminology. It better indicates the idea of trying to discover/apprehend what is the truth, as opposed to your decision causing something to become true.

JimL's vocabulary is lacking. What he means by "rights" is "entitlements"

[JimL]

JimL's vocabulary is lacking. What he means by "rights" is "entitlements"

Same thing dufus. Rights are entitlements given to one, whether by god, nature, or by human society.

[Meh Gerbil]

Same thing dufus. Rights are entitlements given to one, whether by god, nature, or by human society.

I think in typical conversation 'rights' is the ability to do something such that the government won't interfere whereas 'entitlements' are and payout or advantage given by the government.

Rights: Government doesn't interfere with or limits its power in regard to your actions.
Entitlements: Government underwrites your welfare by direct intervention.

I don't think those terms are used in the same way at all.

[JimL]

I think in typical conversation 'rights' is the ability to do something such that the government won't interfere whereas 'entitlements' are and payout or advantage given by the government.

Rights: Government doesn't interfere with or limits its power in regard to your actions.
Entitlements: Government underwrites your welfare by direct intervention.

I don't think those terms are used in the same way at all.

Its called semantics. If the government entitles you to something, then you have a right to it. The terms may not always be used the same way, but they can be.