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

[Sparko]

If someone else also has a moral obligation to help someone then you aren't doing anything immoral by holding them to moral obligations.

fwiw,
guacamole

So since I think it is moral for you to help someone, can I send you my next doctor bill?

[guacamole]

So since I think it is moral for you to help someone, can I send you my next doctor bill?

Nope. I'll do it for free. Open wide while I get my large-size speculum out.

Gcml

[Mountain Man]

So since I think it is moral for you to help someone, can I send you my next doctor bill?

Send it to him? That's far too polite. Hold a gun to his head and force him to pay it. Maybe pistol whip him a little if he seems reluctant. After all, you're simply compelling him to meet his own moral obligations. It's what Jesus would do.

[Sparko]

Nope. I'll do it for free. Open wide while I get my large-size speculum out.

Gcml

my last bill for my medication was $1200. I will send you the bill. If you don't pay I will have to force you. I will make you watch Trump speeches nonstop.

[guacamole]

Send it to him? That's far too polite. Hold a gun to his head and force him to pay it. Maybe pistol whip him a little if he seems reluctant. After all, you're simply compelling him to meet his own moral obligations. It's what Jesus would do.

Reducto much? You're both guilty of this here. "Forcing" encompasses a lot of things before pistol whipping. Societies "force" all sorts of moral actions without resorting to torture. Usually, we try to hit people in the pocketbook first before we resort to the iron maiden or the rack.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

Reducto much? You're both guilty of this here. "Forcing" encompasses a lot of things before pistol whipping. Societies "force" all sorts of moral actions without resorting to torture. Usually, we try to hit people in the pocketbook first before we resort to the iron maiden or the rack.

fwiw,
guacamole

You are just welshing on paying your moral obligation to me. Are you now claiming that you are NOT morally obligated to help me?

[Sparko]

I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me

[guacamole]

You are just welshing on paying your moral obligation to me. Are you now claiming that you are NOT morally obligated to help me?

Nope. If we can take care of each other, we should. If we spread those costs around across the entire population, we are still compelling moral conduct, just doing so short of the lash. If we can find a way to bribe smart people to be doctors, that will suffice.

Look at it another way. Theoretically, the draft is still available to compel people to do their moral duty to the nation should that occasion arise. We're talking a far less drastic set of coercions than that.

fwiw,
uaaoe

[Mountain Man]

"Forcing" encompasses a lot of things...

So in your mind, to what extent should government be obligated to force someone to provide healthcare services to another person, including compelling them to become a doctor in the event that there are insufficient doctors to meet the needs of the population?

Here's the problem: you have defined healthcare as a basic human right equal to the right to life. We execute murders, so should we execute someone if they refuse to become a doctor? How far are you willing to push this thing? Because if what you say is true then we're obligated to push it all the way.

Laughing off a reductio ad absurdum does not actually refute the argument.

[Meh Gerbil]

So if someone needs a blood transfusion the government can take my blood?
So the government cannot compel a woman to deliver a baby (health care for the infant)?

[guacamole]

So in your mind, to what extent should government be obligated to force someone to provide healthcare services to another person, including compelling them to become a doctor in the event that there are insufficient doctors to meet the needs of the population?

The extent of compulsion equals the extent of the existential threat to society. If there were some nightmare sci-fi scenario where tens of millions would die, then the compulsion should be extensive. If it's standard health care and the compulsion is economic, that'll do.

Here's the problem: you have defined healthcare as a basic human right equal to the right to life. We execute murders, so should we execute someone if they refuse to become a doctor?

We can play this game with any of the rights we enjoy: A right to property? Can I kill some sucker who's trying to steal my car? It's a basic human right equal to the right to life after all! A right to free expression? Can I murder someone who censors my internetz posts? It's a basic human right!

We have many rights, and it isn't the case that we defend all of them to the same extent. We don't need to defend them all to the same extent.

How far are you willing to push this thing? Because if what you say is true then we're obligated to push it all the way.

No--the pro-life position puts the lie to this. Are you out killing abortionists right now? No? Then you must not believe that fetuses have a fundamental right to human life, because if you did you'd be obligated to push it all the way. Is that really what you want to argue?

Laughing off a reductio ad absurdum does not actually refute the argument.

One doesn't actually need to refute reductio ad absurdum.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

Nope. If we can take care of each other, we should. If we spread those costs around across the entire population, we are still compelling moral conduct, just doing so short of the lash. If we can find a way to bribe smart people to be doctors, that will suffice.

Look at it another way. Theoretically, the draft is still available to compel people to do their moral duty to the nation should that occasion arise. We're talking a far less drastic set of coercions than that.

fwiw,
uaaoe

When you are talking moral obligations that is something person to person, not something national. Jesus never gave us commands to make others perform their moral duties, he gave us commands for US to do our own moral duties. He never said, Go and don't let your neighbor sin. He never said "make your neighbor love his neighbor"

Sure we can make kids go fight in a war, or doctors heal people, but that isn't Christian morality. In the case of the draft, it is necessity to protect the nation. Nothing moral about it.

[guacamole]

So if someone needs a blood transfusion the government can take my blood?

Given an existential threat to the nation where necessary blood transfusions were necessary to save millions, what should a government do? Given a threat necessary to save hundreds, what should a government do? The nature of the threat defines the response, imo. There doesn't have to be a one side fits all set of responses to a given problem.

So the government cannot compel a woman to deliver a baby (health care for the infant)?

Well, I imagine we're all on the same page on that one.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

When you are talking moral obligations that is something person to person, not something national. Jesus never gave us commands to make others perform their moral duties, he gave us commands for US to do our own moral duties. He never said, Go and don't let your neighbor sin. He never said "make your neighbor love his neighbor"

Sure we can make kids go fight in a war, or doctors heal people, but that isn't Christian morality. In the case of the draft, it is necessity to protect the nation. Nothing moral about it.

I think it's a logical extension of Jesus's teachings, and an ethical extension of pro-life philosophy. We make laws all the time that, in essence, come down to, "Make your neighbor love his neighbor." I would prefer more such laws because people do such a bad job of treating each other well.

I would need to see more of your argumentation on whether or not the draft, and by extension complying with or dodging the draft is moral or not.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

Given an existential threat to the nation where necessary blood transfusions were necessary to save millions, what should a government do? Given a threat necessary to save hundreds, what should a government do? The nature of the threat defines the response, imo. There doesn't have to be a one side fits all set of responses to a given problem.

now you are talking necessity and power to compel. Sure the government CAN do all that. They CAN take your blood or force you into labor camps, or into becoming a doctor, but that doesn't make it moral, or even that they have a moral authority to do so. It is just might makes right.