09 Jul 2017, 6:51 am
09 Jul 2017, 6:53 am
09 Jul 2017, 6:58 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,142
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
09 Jul 2017, 11:57 am
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
09 Jul 2017, 2:30 pm
09 Jul 2017, 5:43 pm
jrjones9933 wrote:
Lintar, people call what they do altruism sometimes, but they don't actually know that the people they set out to help need what they have to offer. They like the sound of it, and think that it would suit them if they were in that position, but frequently no one in the entire chain of charity has bothered to get acquainted with the people in need to find out what exactly they need. Plenty of alleged altruism becomes nothing but a show for the donors, who have no informed regard for the people their actions affect.
I want to provide universal healthcare, but that does not mean spending every dollar to extend every life. I have no complete plan for a system, but it seems obvious to me that a few people who can't face the inevitability of death could bankrupt any unlimited plan. I think providing the maximum total quality of life seems like a good goal, and rewarding good health choices seems like an effective mechanism. Some people will have to die before they want to, or before their relatives want to let them go. I don't envy the people who have to come up with that system.
I want to provide universal healthcare, but that does not mean spending every dollar to extend every life. I have no complete plan for a system, but it seems obvious to me that a few people who can't face the inevitability of death could bankrupt any unlimited plan. I think providing the maximum total quality of life seems like a good goal, and rewarding good health choices seems like an effective mechanism. Some people will have to die before they want to, or before their relatives want to let them go. I don't envy the people who have to come up with that system.
10 Jul 2017, 10:46 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I have seen many emotional arguments on PPR that I'm suppose to have concern about the welfare of strangers.
I'm suppose to care that some stranger, somewhere might be hurt if I don't support a government program.
Today, many people will die that could of been saved by a government program. So what?
Why do I owe those people? Why should I pay for them?
Make your case, thanks.
I'm suppose to care that some stranger, somewhere might be hurt if I don't support a government program.
Today, many people will die that could of been saved by a government program. So what?
Why do I owe those people? Why should I pay for them?
Make your case, thanks.
I'm not certain what you mean precisely when you say "emotional arguments", but I do know that not helping a person in need, when someone needs help and you have the means to provide it, is to me somehow inhuman, utterly reprehensible, and just plain wrong. It has nothing to do with Darwinian "arguments" about how we are a social species, require co-operation for society to work and so on, and everything to do with basic empathy (which people like us apparently lack, according to some misinformed people). There is an old saying that goes along the lines of, "There but for the grace of God go I", which is something you should think about the next time you find yourself in a particularly selfish mood. Misfortune can occur at any time, to anyone, for any reason, and when it does you will be thankful for any assistance given. You need to consider the perspective(s) of the downtrodden, those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable (not "unwilling") to get themselves out of the rut their lives have fallen in to.
By the way, it isn't "selfish" to derive an emotional benefit from helping someone, if, like me, you define selfishness to mean "that which is done for the sole purpose of self-gratification and/or advantage, with no regard for the impact of such actions on others". Altruism is NOT selfishness in disguise.
Then of course there is the religious (specifically Christian) view, but you might take that to be an "emotional" argument, even though as far as I can see it clearly isn't: it's one of common decency, respect, and a recognition that, in the end, we are all the same and can't take our riches with us when we die.
I'm glad to see we can sometimes be on the same side.
Yes, sometimes we do agree! I may at times be abrasive, judgemental and not know when not to comment on a particular topic, but I do try to be reasonable and not cause trouble, even though I often fail. I'm having a really hard time at the moment trying to figure out if the person who started this discussion is actually serious about all of this, or whether it's just a joke. Not help those in need, even if one can? Wow
10 Jul 2017, 11:02 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Ironically, you're making an emotional argument now.
Really? How? Please explain.
LoveNotHate wrote:
Every country makes the decision to ration care, and let people die.
How is that morally wrong ?
How is that morally wrong ?
How is letting people die morally wrong? Is that the question you are asking? Don't take this personally, but the only people who ask questions like this (because they really, really don't know the answer) are sociopaths and psychopaths. WP allows anyone to join, not just "Aspies", so do you belong within either of these categories? I'm not judging you, I'm just curious, because I've never been able to understand the kind of mindset that basically says, "Screw everyone else, I don't care about anyone except myself". It's just totally alien to me, I just cannot understand how anyone can lack empathy to such an extreme (and dangerous) degree.
If you want to take the above as being yet one more "emotional argument", well, go ahead. I don't believe my previous comment was emotional, unless you think that actually caring about others is a bad thing because it often involves a certain level of emotional commitment (ex. the campaign to end slavery often made use of what you would probably label as emotional arguments - i.e. the inherent, intrinsic value of each and every one of us, the need to judge people based upon who they are and not what they look like, and so on).
P.S. A suggestion - stop reading Ayn Rand. At the very least she was a hypocrite, because as I understand it she ended up broke and accepted welfare - from the government!
10 Jul 2017, 11:34 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,142
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Jul 2017, 12:10 am
Lintar wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I have seen many emotional arguments on PPR that I'm suppose to have concern about the welfare of strangers.
I'm suppose to care that some stranger, somewhere might be hurt if I don't support a government program.
Today, many people will die that could of been saved by a government program. So what?
Why do I owe those people? Why should I pay for them?
Make your case, thanks.
I'm suppose to care that some stranger, somewhere might be hurt if I don't support a government program.
Today, many people will die that could of been saved by a government program. So what?
Why do I owe those people? Why should I pay for them?
Make your case, thanks.
I'm not certain what you mean precisely when you say "emotional arguments", but I do know that not helping a person in need, when someone needs help and you have the means to provide it, is to me somehow inhuman, utterly reprehensible, and just plain wrong. It has nothing to do with Darwinian "arguments" about how we are a social species, require co-operation for society to work and so on, and everything to do with basic empathy (which people like us apparently lack, according to some misinformed people). There is an old saying that goes along the lines of, "There but for the grace of God go I", which is something you should think about the next time you find yourself in a particularly selfish mood. Misfortune can occur at any time, to anyone, for any reason, and when it does you will be thankful for any assistance given. You need to consider the perspective(s) of the downtrodden, those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable (not "unwilling") to get themselves out of the rut their lives have fallen in to.
By the way, it isn't "selfish" to derive an emotional benefit from helping someone, if, like me, you define selfishness to mean "that which is done for the sole purpose of self-gratification and/or advantage, with no regard for the impact of such actions on others". Altruism is NOT selfishness in disguise.
Then of course there is the religious (specifically Christian) view, but you might take that to be an "emotional" argument, even though as far as I can see it clearly isn't: it's one of common decency, respect, and a recognition that, in the end, we are all the same and can't take our riches with us when we die.
I'm glad to see we can sometimes be on the same side.
Yes, sometimes we do agree! I may at times be abrasive, judgemental and not know when not to comment on a particular topic, but I do try to be reasonable and not cause trouble, even though I often fail. I'm having a really hard time at the moment trying to figure out if the person who started this discussion is actually serious about all of this, or whether it's just a joke. Not help those in need, even if one can? Wow
S'all good, man.
Trust me, the OP is 100% serious.
