Philosophy discussion
Politics
>
What Is The Limit to Personal Freedom?
The government has a moral basis for protecting it's citizens from other citizens who do not abide by the law which usually reflects the majority's opinion in a country's culture. "Culture is the ultimate authority in society" ( Northrop Frye)
Most countries have a combination of private and public health services even the democratic "socialistic" countries. The degree of involvement will be determined by the culture of the country and is driven by moral values and economic effectiveness. Some are implying one system is better than another when all societies are striving to meet the challenges of an aging population. In my younger years,education used to be the biggest government expense Ideology over analysis is usually not effective.
What western country government has completely taken over health care? The increase in health care costs cannot be rationalized in relation to costs of other important sectors which also impact on health. The public's inability to assess the level and quality of health care compared to say building an automobile adds to the dilemna. Because of the personal nature of health care, everyone has an opinion but I havent' seen much in the way of informed debate. Integration with other health issues , the public's expectations, technology versus moral issues, are more or as important as how the services are delivered. Sanitation and protection of water resources are two that don't seem to get the attention they deserve. I know many large cities have a sanitation system that is challenged particularly in extreme weather.
There are countries that do assist people who want to die but are usually in poor health. One of the past Canadian federal governments brought the issue up but was quickly dropped. Our population is still younger than that of western Europe.In this instance it allows the individual to do what he wants and actually saves the health system money. Most do not want to discuss the moral implications of that policy or the possible misuse. A healthy individual is a bigger problem but it still comes back to the cultural attitude about such things. Not all societies considered suicide a crime, in fact in some, they were given special status.
We know prohibition does not work but alcohol is still one of our biggest health/social problems. Other drug abuse is now becoming a much larger problem particularly in North America. We do not know why it is so severe in North America. Decreasing the supply is of little help if there is no decline in demand. This problem, in my opinion, is cultural rather than political. Government will not be able to solve this problem anymore than the problems with alcoholism and related physical abuse.
Most countries have a combination of private and public health services even the democratic "socialistic" countries. The degree of involvement will be determined by the culture of the country and is driven by moral values and economic effectiveness. Some are implying one system is better than another when all societies are striving to meet the challenges of an aging population. In my younger years,education used to be the biggest government expense Ideology over analysis is usually not effective.
What western country government has completely taken over health care? The increase in health care costs cannot be rationalized in relation to costs of other important sectors which also impact on health. The public's inability to assess the level and quality of health care compared to say building an automobile adds to the dilemna. Because of the personal nature of health care, everyone has an opinion but I havent' seen much in the way of informed debate. Integration with other health issues , the public's expectations, technology versus moral issues, are more or as important as how the services are delivered. Sanitation and protection of water resources are two that don't seem to get the attention they deserve. I know many large cities have a sanitation system that is challenged particularly in extreme weather.
There are countries that do assist people who want to die but are usually in poor health. One of the past Canadian federal governments brought the issue up but was quickly dropped. Our population is still younger than that of western Europe.In this instance it allows the individual to do what he wants and actually saves the health system money. Most do not want to discuss the moral implications of that policy or the possible misuse. A healthy individual is a bigger problem but it still comes back to the cultural attitude about such things. Not all societies considered suicide a crime, in fact in some, they were given special status.
We know prohibition does not work but alcohol is still one of our biggest health/social problems. Other drug abuse is now becoming a much larger problem particularly in North America. We do not know why it is so severe in North America. Decreasing the supply is of little help if there is no decline in demand. This problem, in my opinion, is cultural rather than political. Government will not be able to solve this problem anymore than the problems with alcoholism and related physical abuse.
Bill wrote: "What if a physically healthy person wants to commit suicide in as comfortable a way as possible. What, under your criteria for government intervention, would prevent an industry from growing up which would provide assistance to such people?..."
Your question assumes ("such people...what would prevent") that a choice to end one's life is wrong...even seems to imply that it is immoral. Do you believe this? If so, prior to answering the government's role question you will have to substantiate your judgment that suicide (and I assume that you are talking about a certain type of suicide, namely, euthanasia?) in this condition is immoral.
Again...if the only reason to enact a law making euthanasia illegal is based on moral grounds, then my initial answer would be that this law is inappropriate. However, if an argument can be developed to show that euthanasia is societally imprudent, then a law may be justified.
Thoughts on these important distinctions?
Glen wrote: "Because of the personal nature of health care, everyone has an opinion but I havent' seen much in the way of informed debate. "Glen, you are partially correct. If one listen to the people on the street, or those who often talk on the news, then there is precious little in terms of an informed debate.
However, the well-informed debate is out there...you just have to know where to look. Talk to healthcare executives. Read healthcare economic journals. Scan other economic journals under the topic. Go to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement web page. There have been many scholarly articles, informed discussions, and economic studies on the topic that can help one get past the blind ideology that is front and center on general internet discussions.
You are correct - almost all western nations have some combination of private and public healthcare. But it would be wrong to imply that the differences aren't important. The UK, for example, has private insurance for those who have money and want to pay. However, for those who don't, there is a completely integrated single-payer government system that can be accessed at no cost beyond routine taxes.
This is pretty much the case in the great majority, if not every (depending on one's definitions) developed society. America stands alone among developed nations in terms of having no government solution for those who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, and not old enough to qualify for Medicare, and are working but do not have access to an employer sponsored plan. This is a critically important distinction which shouldn't be lost in the discussion without risking reductionism.
Hi,
I worked as a hospital pharmacy manager for over thirty years and also have a degree in health services administration. I don't see too many people reading health care economic journals. Economics is not very accurate at the best of times. Approximately 25 years ago the economists in this country decided we had too many physcians and hospital beds. We are still trying to resolves some of the issues created by closing beds and reducing student admissions to universitiesat at that time.
I didn't mean to imply differencec were not important and I have some pretty definite opinions on the subject. But in the American current political scene there is a lot of black and white opinions. What I was getting at that the major solution in not in operating the best health care system at the neglest of other important problems. It's the efficiency versus effectiveness issue. We can have the most efficient health care system in the world but it is not going to be effective if we neglect more basic issues and starve other important programs.
I retired this year and believe in some sort of blended system in health care. But we know clean water and sanitation created the biggest improvements in health. They are currently advocating preventative health programs as well, but I don't see much action. As John Kenneth Galbraith said you can't separate ecoomics from politics.
At one point in my career I had dieticians reporting to me. Very difficult to get more funding for them as it is very difficult to measure the cost benefits of most of their programs. Hell, we may be even costing the system money as proper diets may increse life expectancy which could mean a greater cost to the system in the future. Physiotherapy has a similar problem. Of course a pharmaceutical company can do a study proving that giving every long term patient a vaccine for pneuwmonia will more than pay for itself by decreasing acute care hospital admissions.
I was also on health councils (you may call them boards) for the hospital region and for a local child development centre. I'm only telling you that so you know I'v been involved in governance and middle management. It always surprised me how some members of the council (there was at least one politican on the regional council) were uninformed how the health care system orperated. The more I learned the more I believed there are no simple answers.
I worked as a hospital pharmacy manager for over thirty years and also have a degree in health services administration. I don't see too many people reading health care economic journals. Economics is not very accurate at the best of times. Approximately 25 years ago the economists in this country decided we had too many physcians and hospital beds. We are still trying to resolves some of the issues created by closing beds and reducing student admissions to universitiesat at that time.
I didn't mean to imply differencec were not important and I have some pretty definite opinions on the subject. But in the American current political scene there is a lot of black and white opinions. What I was getting at that the major solution in not in operating the best health care system at the neglest of other important problems. It's the efficiency versus effectiveness issue. We can have the most efficient health care system in the world but it is not going to be effective if we neglect more basic issues and starve other important programs.
I retired this year and believe in some sort of blended system in health care. But we know clean water and sanitation created the biggest improvements in health. They are currently advocating preventative health programs as well, but I don't see much action. As John Kenneth Galbraith said you can't separate ecoomics from politics.
At one point in my career I had dieticians reporting to me. Very difficult to get more funding for them as it is very difficult to measure the cost benefits of most of their programs. Hell, we may be even costing the system money as proper diets may increse life expectancy which could mean a greater cost to the system in the future. Physiotherapy has a similar problem. Of course a pharmaceutical company can do a study proving that giving every long term patient a vaccine for pneuwmonia will more than pay for itself by decreasing acute care hospital admissions.
I was also on health councils (you may call them boards) for the hospital region and for a local child development centre. I'm only telling you that so you know I'v been involved in governance and middle management. It always surprised me how some members of the council (there was at least one politican on the regional council) were uninformed how the health care system orperated. The more I learned the more I believed there are no simple answers.
Glen wrote: "Hi,I worked as a hospital pharmacy manager for over thirty years and also have a degree in health services administration. I don't see too many people reading health care economic journals. Ec..."
Glen...thanks for the background. I'm a career health care exec myself. It sounds like you have a solid understanding of the issues. However, I still contend that there is a great deal of useful information and informed analysis and debate that are available if one is desirous of really understanding the issue.
The problem, as I see it, is that precious few people are really interested in understanding - that includes congress. What they are more interested in is ideology. The basic attitude: "My mind is made up...don't try to confuse me with facts."
I agree that the issues go beyond health care...definitely. However, I also feel that health care is one of the fundamental issues, driving many of the others.
I also applaud your ability to view health care comprehensively, and not just in terms of "sick care", but about root cause issues like safety, clean water, lifestyle, environmental impact, food supply, etc...all of which definitely are contributors. However, those issues will likely be around forever because they speak to lifestyle and philosophy, which many have no interest in changing. Access is something else, and is a good first step as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks again.
Patrice wrote: "Are you aware that we provide the longest survival rate for all diseases?..."I am aware of a great many statistics related to health outcome. That is not one of them. Your source, please?
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: This is pretty much the case in the great majority, if not every (depending on one's definitions) developed society. America stands alone among developed nations in terms of having no..."Bill...sounds like you have done a good job. However, don't make the mistake of thinking your personal situation is definitive for everyone else. Health insurance premiums, as I'm sure you know, are driven by a host of factors and actuarial analysis. Because you found a way to work it out doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that all others who aren't poor enough for medicaid could. I mean, what exactly are you saying? That all 50 million uninsured in this country are just wasting their money? That would be a broad, sweeping, and unsubstantiated statement at best.
Also, it is pretty clear that there is strong ideology behind your final sentence. I could be wrong, but it certainly seems so. To say that access to healthcare is not one of the key drivers just seems a bit absurd on the surface. Maybe you could reveal your thinking that substantiates such a claim?
Patrice wrote: "My source is my son who is a medical dr. and researcher. He said the data is skewed and you must compare apples to apples...."I thought your response would be something like this. Your son has a definite right to his opinion but the issues are just too important to accept broad, blanket statements without substantiating data.
Yes, he is right about the factors. This is a multivariate issue, all of which interact strongly, and that makes the analysis very complicated. But it can be done. If he wants to convince informed, thinking people, though, he will have to supply more than an opinion.
If you are really interested, I suggest you get out there and do the research yourself rather than just listening to your son who may have his own axe to grind. I'm sure he's a great guy and competent in his field, and that you love him dearly, but it doesn't change the point.
People travel from all over the world to Mayo because it is a great organization with great care. That's the answer to your question. People from this country also travel to India to have their surgeries performed. All of that is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a significant problem.
Bill wrote: "Of course its immoral. This is obvious ..."Thanks Bill. I will have to disagree with you - it is not obvious at all, and that is why medical ethicists have been debating the euthanasia issues for eons and why Dr. Kevorkian's name is a househould name.
Recall that I made my comments in respect to euthanasia...not some unbalanced person out there who is just depressed and jumps off a bridge. The situation surrounding euthanasia is tremendously complex and you are just glossing over all of that. A person who is terminally ill, suffering daily, a burden to their family, financially destitute, and completely exhausted emotionally and spiritually has a strong argument that euthanasia, assisted by a professional, is the lesser of evils in an overall rotten situation.
You may think that person is wrong, but you will have to say why in a convincing way. I may also think he is wrong. The Catholic Church may think he is wrong. But is it obvious? Definitive? Clear???? Does anyone have the right to make that decision for him? The answer to all of those questions (with the possible exception of the last one) is, OBVIOUSLY, no.
Bill wrote: "That is precisely what I am saying. If someone is paying for a new car or a bigger house then they can afford instead of health insurance..they are being irresponsible and wasting their money...."All you are doing, Bill, is repeating your previous statement, which was unsubstantiated. That is not an argument...that's just repetition.
I did support my statement. I explained how insurance premiums are derived actuarially, and I explained that your personal situation is affected by all of that, and is part of the reason (other than your hard work and responsible approach) that you were able to afford it. I then explained, though, that all of these factors make it clear that you can't assume your situation is definitive for all of the uninsured. That seems to me to be obvious on the surface.
I'm not speaking on the basis of ideology - I'm speaking on the basis of mathematics and risk and return. Insurance companies take your age, your gender, your health history, your parents' health history, your life situation, number of kids, job safety, etc, etc, etc. and feed that into a complex predictive algorithm that spits out a premium. You see? In the light of that, to assume that YOUR situation, and YOUR affordability, apply to the millions of uninsured is just reckless thinking.
When employers buy insurance as a large group, all of these many actuarial factors are reduced because the insurance company spreads the risk across the number of people in the group. That's why the premiums are so much lower. But you were talking about buying individual policies....that's a whoooooole different matter.
I hope that's clear. If it's not there's probably no basis in going further unless you can substantiate your statement at the same level of detail with which I substantiated mine. I'm not in the mood to argue ideology. It generally goes nowhere.
Bill wrote: "I said in my original statement that the suicide i'm talking about is a 'healthy person' please go back and read this. I'm not talking about terminally ill and suffering people. That was never at issue..."Bill, I went back and read your statement, and you are correct. I missed the word "healthy" in your original statement. My mistake.
I have no personal problem with laws preventing suicide by healthy people. However, that is based on my personal feelings on the issue and the fact that it is societally prudent to prevent someone from taking their own life if it presents a burden to others in society. That was my original criterion for legitimate laws and I think it applies here.
That said, I still do not believe it is "obvious" at all. And I think it would be possible to rationally argue the other side of the issue.
Thanks for catching my earlier mistake. It's not the first one I've ever made and won't be the last (smile).
Bill wrote: "What you just said is not any more explanatory, or conclusive, that you are either more correct, or less ideologically driven, then I am.Prodigality of words does not make an assertion more then an assertion. You assert that mathematics and actuarial data support the need for this national healthcare plan. This is simply an assertion on your part. And of course it is ideologically driven...."
(chuckles) Well, Bill, if you don't think there was any explanation of my point in what I wrote it's probably of no benefit for us to continue the debate. No offense...just calling it for what it is.
For the record...you misunderstood my argument. The mathematics and actuarial analysis I referenced wasn't a substantiation for the government's involvement in health care at all. Rather, I was demonstrating why your assertion of your own personal ability to pay for your own health insurance does not stand as an argument that people could afford insurance on their own if they just weren't wasteful. That was your point.
So much for that. Reading the last few sentences of your response I don't really see any reason to continue discussing the health care issue. We just think differently.
Bill wrote: "You seem to agree that you think a healthy suicide is immoral because it impacts his loved ones.But then you seem to imply you'd support government intervention only because it was 'prudent' to prevent this impact..."
No...I am not arguing that it is immoral. Rather, I am saying this: there is an argument that it deserves government intervention on the basis of societal prudence, namely the impact it has on others.
I rarely argue on the basis of morality. Most things ascribed to "morality" are difficult to defend at best.
You also wrote: "But if he's a homosexual, this may impact his families mental well being as well, but i'm sure you wouldn't ban his homosexuality in this case. Its his right to be gay, even if his family thinks its horrible and agonizes over his going to hell over it."
I don't think being a homosexual and committing suicide can be equated at all in terms of the impact on society and the family. Yes, they both impact the family, but in extremely different ways. Because a parent or sibling is caused "stress" over their family member's homosexuality due to their religious beliefs is very different, to me, than the impact of suicide. For example, if the suicidal person is a parent, there is the loss of income. Furthermore, having a loved one kill themselves produces a whole different level of emotional anguish than having a person follow a lifestyle of which you don't approve...at least that's the case for me. If you feel that the level of anguish is comparable, well we will just have to disagree.
You also said: "If a healthy person thinks that his life is not worth living, why should the government intervene to save his family pain? "
I'm not sure that there is a solid reason for laws in this case. If you go back and read my post, you will see that I acknowledged this. I said that I currently don't have a problem with it for reasons stated. However, I also can easily see the other side, and feel that a rational argument could be mounted against the appropriateness of laws in this case. So, you see? I can see both sides of the healthy suicide issue re: governmental intervention.
Bill wrote: "No it wasn't my main point..it was a point in service of my main point, which was at the end of my original entry into this discussion. Go back and read it.Neither was I saying that because I could afford insurance, everybody who isn't wasteful can. ..."
OK. But it sure sounded like that's exactly what you were originally saying on both counts. I did go back and read it.
If not, then fine...I accept your clarification. However, I still suspect that, given our different ways of thinking, further debate will produce little fruit.
Patrice wrote: "I have just done a quick search and apparently the United States does offer the best survival rates for breast cancer. I wish you all good health."
Correct. It is true that our breast cancer survival rates are the highest. That is a commonly known statistic. It has to do with our treatment protocols and early detection. That's good. I agree.
However, that is a VERY different thing from your original statement, which I quote here: "we provide the longest survival rate for all diseases"
Breast cancer is one...just one...disease. Not all.
And I also wish YOU good health and good cheer!
Robert wrote: "Sex: is there a moral basis for regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults? not at all. Is there a basis in prudence? Not at all. Therefore, there should be no law."
Certainly there is a basis in prudence. Children are very expensive for society. Even for parents who will require no social welfare, food stamps, subsidized health care, etc., there is the very high cost of educating children, the higher use of resources (resulting in environmental damage), and on and on.
Any sexual activity which might result in pregnancy has a much higher risk of very great cost to society than failing to use a seat belt, to use the example we've been working with.
Everyman wrote: "Robert wrote: "Sex: is there a moral basis for regulating what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults? not at all. Is there a basis in prudence? Not at all. Therefore, there should be no ..."Everyman...are you serious? You are suggesting that sex should be regulated because of the possibility of children?
Bill wrote: "Of course its [suicide of a healthy adult] immoral."You make that a blanket statement, but then only talk about the emotional impact on others who love the person. I agree that suicide has a significant emotional impact on family members -- I saw this firsthand when I was in high school and a friend of mine (whose family were close friends of my family) hanged himself in his bedroom.
But under what principle of morality is that immoral? Am I to be prevented from any decision I want to make if it will bring pain to ones I love? Is it immoral for a young man who comes from a pacifist family to join the military? Is it immoral for the child of a Ku Klux Klan family to marry an African American? My sister married a Jewish man whose mother and aunt were emotionally devastated by his decision to marry a gentile -- was their decision to marry immoral?
Bill wrote: "If there is no right for the government to prevent someone from killing and eating their chicken, why is there a right for the government to prevent him from making love to the chicken."Interesting argument. I would only suggest that there may be a difference if the method of killing is painless to the chicken and the method of making love causes the chicken pain and extended suffering. But in general, while the mere thought of bestiality disgusts me, I agree that you have a valid point as long as the making of love does not inflict pain or suffering on the animal.
Each country will develop it's health care system according to what is politically feasible and economically possible. Comparing different country's systems is very difficult because of culture, geography, wealth, etc..
It's as difficult as comparing political systems among countries. Even the western democracies have a significant difference in their cultures, never mind trying to understand the ancient giants of China and India.
It's as difficult as comparing political systems among countries. Even the western democracies have a significant difference in their cultures, never mind trying to understand the ancient giants of China and India.
Glen wrote: "Each country will develop it's health care system according to what is politically feasible and economically possible."Agreed. Especially the "politically feasible" part. Not so sure that economics are the primary factor in the country's decision.
The economics may not be known at the time of implementation but will soon be discovered. When the economics become unrealistic policy changes occur.
As the world gets smaller we all become more interdependent. How that impacts on our own personal freedom will determine much of our perspective on the issue.
As the world gets smaller we all become more interdependent. How that impacts on our own personal freedom will determine much of our perspective on the issue.
Bill wrote: "Thanks. So you think people should not be prosecuted for sexing up chickens? Do you really think this is an important liberty to allow people in our society? For the purposes of discussion, we'll assume that this liberty is as important to the chicken lover as Cuban style health care for America is to Micheal Moore and Robert. ."
Haha! That's funny. I have chosen not to get involved in the chicken conversation because, well, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. (smile)
You shouldn't assume too much though on my feelings for what kind of health care is needed.
Bill wrote: "Everyman wrote: "You make that a blanket statement, but then only talk about the emotional impact on others who love the person. I agree that suicide has a significant emotional impact on family me..."Bill: this post of yours (#309)fascinated me, I have to say. It causes me to ask you a direct question, to which I would much appreciate a direct answer: how do you define "morality"?
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "Bill: this post of yours (#309)fascinated me, I have to say. It causes me to ask you a direct question, to which I would much appreciate a direct answer: how do you define "morality"..."That's what I thought you'd say. It's unwieldy, is it not? That's why, as I said in a previous post, I tend not to argue on the basis of "morality". It's a slippery slope at best in a public debate. For personal decision making, sure. But for public debate...nah.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "That's what I thought you'd say. It's unwieldy, is it not? That's why, as I said in a previous post, I tend not to argue on the basis of "morality". It's a slippery slope at best in ..."Yes...I'm not talking here about "belief". I'm talking about where to base, or how to support, a philosophical argument. The fact that morality is largely a matter of "belief" is precisely the issue I am highlighting in reference to argumental foundations.
Robert wrote: Now the general point: if there is no prudence argument, does the government have a moral basis for protecting us from ourselves?The government does have that basis if it is grounded in an adequate conception of justice.
We have to distinguish what we might do for ourselves (an ethical problem) from what rights and duties we have in society.
The idea that morality is largely a matter of belief sounds like emotivism or intuitionism. There are other moral systems, however, that do attempt to ground morality objectively. Kant tried to do that; egalitarianism and utilitarianism, as well as some forms of libertarianism, also profess an objective basis.
Consider the consequences of the idea that morality is a matter of subjective belief. If society, or the government in particular, cannot ground its reasons for acting in something objective, then governance becomes a matter of subjective preference, as it in some cases is. Would we be happy with that?
The problem is that if a moral vacuum results from emotivist and intuitionist ideas, that vacuum will be filled somehow anyway. In the absence of a moral system, the moral psychology of the situation suggests that the most intimidating or the most cunning among us will be the ones making the rules. That would turn the basis of government into an expression of egoism, not morality.
One of the problems is that while we're talking about what the government or society must do for us or must not do to us, we're losing sight of what duties we might owe in return. That points to the question of whether there is any implicit "social contract" in the way society is structured.
Many of the arguments put forth about social policies are made from a subjective point of view. I don't think this is proper. Such arguments ought to be made without reference to one's own personal circumstances if they are to be counted as moral arguments.
A basic question that might be helpful is why humans even live in societies in the first place.
Hi Bill --What if a physically healthy person wants to commit suicide in as comfortable a way as possible. What, under your criteria for government intervention, would prevent an industry from growing up which would provide assistance to such people?
Because I regard suicide an absolute right, no health care system, public or private, can abridge the freedom to do it.
Tyler wrote: "Robert wrote: Now the general point: if there is no prudence argument, does the government have a moral basis for protecting us from ourselves?The government does have that basis if it is groun..."
Tyler...I think we are agreeing; just using different nomenclature and language. I admit that I was not attempting to be real careful in my use of commonly used words.
I completely agree with criteria for societal law making related to justice, utilitarianism, and other time-honored approaches to ethics. I find ethical reasoning to be a VERY helpful way to assess these laws.
Although I realize it is often done, and that it makes perfect sense (as long as one defines their terms), I don't usually use the word "morality" for these times of things. This is because "morality", for many people, is rooted in religious belief and I have found the conversations very unwieldly when people mix-up religious belief and doctrine with ethical criteria. That's what I meant when I said it was usually based in belief and highly subjective.
What I was arguing for as societal prudence is actually an umbrella term, in the way I was using it, for ethical constructs like utilitarianism, justice, etc.
In sum, though, we are on the same page it sounds to me...uses of language aside.
Thanks for the very helpful clarification.
Hi Robert --I see your point about the use people make of the term "morality." Another problem that comes up is whether we should call certain acts "evil" rather than "bad." I feel a little more comfortable with those terms. I think religious points of view are more explicit when an idea is written, but in conversation it is often really hard to figure out what the root of the other person's outlook comes down to.
What I was arguing for as societal prudence is actually an umbrella term, in the way I was using it, for ethical constructs like utilitarianism, justice, etc.
Now that I think of it, I believe prudence plays an important role in pragmatism. If I've got this correct, emotivist and intuitionist accounts (I'm not attributing those to you personally) of moral reasoning often rely on pragmatism.
Language and terminology are interesting in philosophy. In the books I've read, each philosopher seems to have his own particular word for a generally understood concept. I wish there were some way to codify philosophical terminology.
Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --I see your point about the use people make of the term "morality." Another problem that comes up is whether we should call certain acts "evil" rather than "bad." I feel a little mo..."
If one is familiar with the literature, then the terms are actually pretty well- defined. For example, in ethics as a school of applied philosophy, great pains are taken to clearly define critical terms like "beneficence", "justice", "the common good", "autonomy", etc.
For academicians, and non-academics who just happen to be very well-read, these terms are usually clear. The problem is that in common everyday discourse they are not typically clear at all. So, I try to lean toward common usage of words like morality.
As far as pragmatism, coming out of the Dewey and James writings, that strikes me as something different than emotion and intuition. But then, I may be misunderstanding your use of those terms.
Bill wrote: "Now, I know my arguments are very utilitarian."I don't know whether or not I consider that utilitarian. It seems to me that your sense of what is immoral gives the highest priority to the effect of one's acts on other people rather than the rightness or wrongness of an act for oneself. You think that the son should not join the military when he wants to because it would bring emotional pain to his family. What that's saying is that when there is a conflict between what is best for his life and what is better for his family's life, he should sacrifice his beliefs and let their beliefs control his life. Likewise, the man should not marry who he loves and thinks will make him happy because that will bring sadness to others. Again, your morality says sacrifice yourself to submit to the prejudices of others.
That's a somewhat stark way of putting it, but am I being unfair to your view, and if so how?
Bill wrote: "So you think people should not be prosecuted for sexing up chickens? Do you really think this is an important liberty to allow people in our society? "I don't think this particular liberty in and of itself is that important, but I think that the right to exercise whatever liberty that person wants to as long as it doesn't hurt others* IS that important. It's the behavioral equivalent of Voltaire's famous position on free speech.
If others can stop the chicken sexer from exercising his preferred liberty, they can stop me from exercising mine and you from exercising yours even if we are not hurting them by how we prefer to live our lives. So I guess here I am pretty much an absolutist. If what I do isn't hurting or interfering directly with your life, butt out.
* By not hurting others, I exclude from that hurting their feelings or beliefs; maybe they suffer emotionally from thinking of the chicken being sexed, but that's not the chicken sexer's fault.
Tyler wrote: "I see your point about the use people make of the term "morality." Another problem that comes up is whether we should call certain acts "evil" rather than "bad.""I don't really like either of those. I would suggest "damaging" or "harmful to others."
Bill wrote: "Everyman wrote: " It seems to me that your sense of what is immoral gives the highest priority to the effect of one's acts on other people rather than the rightness or wrongness of an act for ones..."Bill, reading your responses I continue to see two questions pop into my mind:
1) Have you ever studied ethics as a branch of philosophy on a somewhat formal basis? In school, say?
2) It seems that the basic problem I see with your approach to issues of morality is that your positions are based solely in your own personal opinions on specific issues. At least, that's what it appears from reading your responses. Now, from a personal standpoint for living your own life, that is certainly fine...maybe even necessary. However, from the perspective of public discourse on the subject of ethics, it simply doesn't work. In that forum objective analysis and rationale is needed. Thoughts on that?
Bill wrote: "What I have done is addressed specific concrete examples and given very specific reasoning for my position. If you disagree, it should be very easy for you to demonstrate my inconsistency, shouldn't it? So why didn't you do that, if you were going to bother at all?Thanks Bill. Let me clarify: I am not saying, necessarily, that you are "inconsistent". Rather, I am saying that your only real standard appears to be your own personal interpretation of a set of specific circumstances. So, it's hard to be inconsistent with oneself when one has not articulated a set of objective principles or criteria. Rather, the methodology could be summarized as: step 1: here's a circumstance. Step 2: here's what I think about it.
So, my critique could be summarized as this: articulate a set of general principles and criteria, then show us how that applies to your specific examples. Absent that, debating your conclusions would be a waste of time because it becomes nothing more than an opinionated verbal joust.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: " So, my critique could be summarized as this: articulate a set of general principles and criteria, then show us how that applies to your specific examples. Absent that, debating you..."
Yes, I read those. That's not what I'm talking about...I'm not just saying you should state your reasons. I referencing the fact that those "reasons" (or your support) is based solely on individual interpretation (i.e. opinion) concerning the circumstances of each situation - not general ethical principles of analysis and decision making.
That's why I asked if you had ever formally studied ethics. General principles like justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, common good vs. individual good, and so forth are examples of those principles.
If that's not clear, I apologize. I don't know how to make it clearer. Maybe Tyler or Everyman, or someone else, could help.
Bill wrote: "Robert wrote: "That's not what I'm talking about...I'm not just saying you should state your reasons. I referencing the fact that those "reasons" (or your support) is based solely on individual int..."Thanks Bill. It sounds like you are a bit peeved. If I'm wrong, that's fine.
I must say that I still think you are evading my point because you just don't like it. Don't be offended...I don't mean that as an attack, really. Just an honest observation.
I do think though, that you and I alone have gone as far as we can on this. If others want to jump in, fine. If not...that's fine too!
Bill wrote: "There are some housing divisions that force residents, before they buy a house in that division, to sign a document saying they will follow rules of the association. Such as mowing the lawn, not painting the house hot pink, etc. They do this, not because the neighbors hot pink house hurts them in any way, but because the absence of hot pink houses makes the quality of life better. In their view."Which is fine, because the buyer has full access to the limitations and can decide not to buy there if she doesn't want to live with the restrictions.
But if there is no rule against pink houses, and she paints her house pink, can the association then turn around and say oh, we are changing the rules to prohibit pink houses, you'll have to repaint yours?
Bill wrote: "No matter how much one uses philosophical formulations of one particular school or another-- in making ethical judgments regarding specific circumstances, they are, in fact, going to be using them according to individual interpretation. "Bingo.
The only real alternative to this is acceptance of an external absolutist creed (religion or otherwise) which one agrees to (or in the case of law can be forced to) comply with even when compliance conflicts with individual belief.
I think you did as good a job as one here in an informal discussion can expect of laying out your general philosophy, recognizing that it is a philosophy that necessarily involves some subjectivity.
I'm not sure what would satisfy Robert other than something like "I will do exactly what the Bible instructs me to do, and where there are conflicts between different passages in the Bible I will always follow the earlier passage over the later passage, earlier and later being defined in the order of the books in the King James Version of the Bible." Of course, even in that case some interpretation will be needed, but perhaps less.
I notice that Robert has not addressed the specific questions I posed. Robert, why don't you give us an example of the sort of answer you would have liked Bill to give by giving us a specific philosophy and then applying it to the specific cases I asked about, without allowing any personal subjectivity to enter into to your answers. Then we will be able to see not just the sort of answer you consider inadequate, but what you consider a right answer would look like.
It is, after all, easier to throw stones than to build a stone wall. We've seen you throw stones; now may we see you build a wall?
Everyman wrote: "I notice that Robert has not addressed the specific questions I posed. Robert, why don't you give us an example of the sort of answer you would have liked Bill to give by giving us a specific philosophy and then applying it to the specific cases I asked about, without allowing any personal subjectivity to enter into to your answers. Then we will be able to see not just the sort of answer you consider inadequate, but what you consider a right answer would look like. It is, after all, easier to throw stones than to build a stone wall. We've seen you throw stones; now may we see you build a wall? ..."
Specific question? Maybe I missed it. Please direct me to the post number and I will do my best.
I think I did give examples of the type of constructs I would like to see when something is more than pure opinion on specific circumstances. Maybe you missed those?
I agree that even when general analytical constructs are used they are used by individuals and that necessarily introduces an element of subjectivity...no doubt. However, it is still possible to apply those generally accepted constructs in a way that goes beyond just "here's what I think".
Give me a description of an ethical quandary and I will do my best to demonstrate what I am saying. Right now I am being called to dinner, and must respond to my wife's call out of respect to her time investment, which is, ethically and morally, the only acceptable response to her (smile).
Tyler message 319Consider the consequences of the idea that morality is a matter of subjective belief. If society, or the government in particular, cannot ground its reasons for acting in something objective, then governance becomes a matter of subjective preference, as it in some cases is. Would we be happy with that?
The problem is that if a moral vacuum results from emotivist and intuitionist ideas, that vacuum will be filled somehow anyway. In the absence of a moral system, the moral psychology of the situation suggests that the most intimidating or the most cunning among us will be the ones making the rules. That would turn the basis of government into an expression of egoism, not morality.
This is a very important point, in my ever so humble opinion. Subjective vs. objective actions of government...how would we know the difference? Nearly all politicians and pundits claim an objective stance because to deny an objective view is to deny reality itself. However, as we know, claiming objectivity does not make it so.
The problem seems to be that we cannot create or rationally understand an "objective" morality that isn't handed down to us from on high (not to mention the fact that we could question the objectivity of that morality as well). Morality is all about action; it requires us to do or not do certain things in order to achieve preferred ends. But preferred by whom? So long as a morality is put forth by a sentient being with their own preferences, we cannot really say that morality is "objective" in some sort of scientific sense rather than an expression of that moralist's preferences. Sure, we can confound some by showing inconsistencies, but consistency is not the only hallmark of morality.
The problem lies in showing that the ends are somehow "good" in a way that wouldn't require human evaluation to exist. That's my understanding of "objective" anyway, things that are regardless of human preferences or understanding.
I'm comfortable with the notion that morality or social norms are subjective to the ends desired by people because those subjective ends are tied to objective rules of reality as to how best to achieve them. Eric Posner does a decent jobs showing this in his book Law and Social Norms, Douglass North in his Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, and Ludwig von Mises in Human Action (I'm only halfway done with that one, though, but I'd be surprised to see a sudden reversal of that claim at the end!).
Egoism is an attempt by every person to enjoy this world as best as possible by responding to whatever it is that pleases them best and minimizing that which will hurt them. Would an objective morality aim at something different and if so, why would it be superior?
Our duties and our rights does largely depend on why we enter society in the first place. A lot of disagreement on that point between anthropologists, historians, political scientists, philosophers, economists, etc. I like the social contract (though not Rousseau's book) but it is important to remember that it is a mental tool, not a description of reality. While Hobbes and in particular Locke attempt to bring in God and an objective morality, I don't believe it is necessary, and the main reason for both philosophers was that man benefits from the protection against violence and division of labor made possible by the protection of goods. Other philosophers may disagree as to the point, but I think at the very least these authors show a subjective morality can lead to a high functioning society.
Robert wrote: "Specific question? Maybe I missed it. Please direct me to the post number and I will do my best."
See post 304. I posed three specific situations in which the decision must be made between individual desire and the effect of the decision on others. These are what Bill was responding to.
To save you the trouble of going back, here they are again, in the context of the full paragraph. But the specific questions are, in each of those situations, what is the moral thing for the individual to do, and to the point of your objection to Bill, what is your principle of moral behavior which justifies your view, assuming that the individual's choice will bring significant emotional pain to his or her family?
The questions: But under what principle of morality is that immoral? Am I to be prevented from any decision I want to make if it will bring pain to ones I love? Is it immoral for a young man who comes from a pacifist family to join the military? Is it immoral for the child of a Ku Klux Klan family to marry an African American? My sister married a Jewish man whose mother and aunt were emotionally devastated by his decision to marry a gentile -- was their decision to marry immoral?
Here's a very concrete moral question that Washington State is working through at this time.The "morning after" pill is viewed by some people as being murder because it destroys what they see as an already existent life. Without getting into your view of whether that is a valid opinion, for the sake of this situation you have to accept that it is. Pharmacists in the State of Washington who hold this view are strongly resisting being required by the State, as a condition of being licensed pharmacists, to fill prescriptions for this drug. They contend that they have a right not to participate in killing innocent babies. Those who oppose their objections say that particularly in rural areas there may be only one pharmacy where a patient can realistically get the drug in time for it to be effective, and that it is immoral for a pharmacist to refuse to fill the prescription and perhaps force them into an unwanted pregnancy. (Leave aside the reality that they are only in this position because, assuming it is not a case of rape, they chose to engage in unprotected sex.)
Question: What principle of morality to you bring to this situation, and under that principle, do you believe that the state does or does not have the right to require these pharmacists as a condition of working in their chosen profession to violate their deep moral belief that to prescribe this drug is an act of killing an innocent child?
Question:
Hi Aaron --An important point your post makes is that morality cannot be objectively grounded in the scientific sense. Scientific truth means correspondence to reality, an ontological standard. But facts of human interaction can also be true epistemologically, such as when we designate a piece of paper money, or a rule of addition to mean two plus two equals four. The good, then, although it makes no ontological sense, can be evaluated using epistemological standards of truth.
Rather more tenuously, it's possible to talk about moral truths so long as the starting point, or justification, of the moral theory is designated. But, as you mention, moving from a subjective hunch to something objective is a problem. Doing so would require a non-moral justification or an explicit mutual agreement to treat a grounding principle as an objective one. A subjective opinion about human norms must appeal to some epistemological standard to be rational and understood. In any case, an emotivist or intuitionist conception of morality makes pragmatism necessary to mediate among preferences. Politics and politicians today are all about pragmatism. The question is whether it takes the rest of us where we want to go.
Egoism is an attempt by every person to enjoy this world as best as possible by responding to whatever it is that pleases them best and minimizing that which will hurt them. Would an objective morality aim at something different and if so, why would it be superior?
An objective morality may or may not be different, depending on whether it recognizes human life as its grounding value, and specifically the lives of individuals. If social contract theory has any explanatory power, we ought to be able to look at any existing system and determine whether it is based on self-interest or something else. The question is that in the hypothetical state of nature, what would people actually agree to to form a society? That is, what principles would best protect their incipient rights? The answer depends on the degree of objectivity with which people reason. If people argued their way toward a social contract from pure subjectivity, no agreement would ever be reached.
Man’s overall nature is relevant to a social contract. If historians, economists, anthropologists and other social scientists don’t agree on every point, it seems reasonable that they can at least tell us what not to do. Whatever facts they can adduce must have an (epistemologically) objective basis. The objectivity of the social sciences is debatable, but it cannot be ruled out. Even so, that’s part of what makes moral reasoning one of the most difficult endeavors in philosophy. For politics, the question is what we would accept as a rational justification for social and legal actions. However that’s decided, I agree that contract theory is a mental tool that cannot be used to radically reform society. All the same, the efficacy and the ease with which various theories can be applied in concrete situations is relevant to evaluating those theories.
Here are a couple of links to the books you mentioned, Law and Social Normsand Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. The synopses are pretty interesting.
Hi Bill --What is the practical relevance of the question since 'the rest of us' have been a significant minority for the last 2500 years with little more consensus then the emotive and intuitive moralizers?
The question is irrelevant if you don't think political theory matters or can be implemented. But political conditions, whatever their current state, are noticeably better than they were in the past, and it seems unlikely that "the rest of us" have had no hand in improving them.
Politicians are pragmatists because thats the only way to agree on policy.
If this is the case, and if pragmatism means dispensing with principles as a matter of principles, then the scope of action politicians have must be restricted. A contractarian theory would do that. But I don't think even politicians act on purely pragmatic grounds in all cases.
Well, there has been cases where philosophical agreement became necessary. Which is pretty much a critical component of totalitarianism, isn't it?
I don't agree. The worst totalitarian regimes have resulted from one-man rule. Philosophical principles, whichever they were, made no difference; if they hadn't been compromised, the political entity wouldn't have taken on a totalitarian character.
Hi Everyman --Question: What principle of morality to you bring to this situation, and under that principle, do you believe that the state does or does not have the right to require these pharmacists as a condition of working in their chosen profession to violate their deep moral belief that to prescribe this drug is an act of killing an innocent child?
The principle that there exists a public good is what has priority. Not just anyone can become a pharmacist. The state decides the licensing requirements. In its capacity, it acts for the public benefit and cannot morally act otherwise. That means that if the drug is legal and legally prescribed, it must be dispensed impartially.
I have little sympathy for such pharmacists. If we had doctors who acted as they did, many patients would face dangerous denials of service. As a citizen with equal rights, I would expect the state to act on everyone's behalf to protect us from the harassment implicit in trying to locate a professional whose personal beliefs aligned with our own. In other words, I expect the state to act for the public good.
It would, however, be acceptable for the pharmacist to withhold the drug so long as anybody could sell it.
Tyler wrote: "The principle that there exists a public good is what has priority. "That, of course, begs the question what is the public good and who decides what it is. To take the classic example of modern evil, the German government in the 1930s and into the 1940s decided that the public good mandated the destruction of the Jewish race.
As to your example of "If we had doctors who acted as they did...", in fact we do. We have doctors, indeed many of them, who refuse to administer lethal injections to those who society has decreed deserve to die for their crimes, and where the state has decreed that the public good is served by having them killed by lethal injection. Under your philosophy, then, fairly applied, any doctor who was asked by the State to administer these injections and refused, pitting their personal morality against the public good, should be stripped of their right to practice medicine. This is a necessary consequence of following your principle. I assume, therefore, that you would support and approve of such a policy.
In my view there are no absolute truths and morality can be qualified by circumstances. Any rigid ideology , theology , philosophy, in time will fail or at the least be modified or have exceptions.
Regimes like Hitlers forced many policies on the country, to a great extent by fear, not what was morally acceptable by the public. I don't think the government "decided that the public good mandated" anything, they just enforced their own beliefs on the public reagardless of what was good for them. I thought Karl Jaspers book "The Question of GErman Guilt" was enlightening.
I understand you are asking a theorectical question but one that the government would probably not have to face. Technicians are taught to administer anesthetics and therefore counld be trained to do lethal injections. If a physician is required by law, then the government would use a volunteer method first and I'm sure would find enough for that number. If that failed some compromise would be made to training others.
I did not mean to disturb .
Regimes like Hitlers forced many policies on the country, to a great extent by fear, not what was morally acceptable by the public. I don't think the government "decided that the public good mandated" anything, they just enforced their own beliefs on the public reagardless of what was good for them. I thought Karl Jaspers book "The Question of GErman Guilt" was enlightening.
I understand you are asking a theorectical question but one that the government would probably not have to face. Technicians are taught to administer anesthetics and therefore counld be trained to do lethal injections. If a physician is required by law, then the government would use a volunteer method first and I'm sure would find enough for that number. If that failed some compromise would be made to training others.
I did not mean to disturb .
Philosophy
Books mentioned in this topic
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (other topics)Law and Social Norms (other topics)
Well...again...if you are willing to entertain all sorts of hypothetical fears (which, to me, betrays just a small bit of paranoia), then yes...yes to all of these potential fears. However, because it is a hypothetical, we don't need for them to take over healthcare or anything else to be afraid of potential developments. We can be afraid any time we like or choose. A right-wing fascist dictatorship could be set up through military coup in the next 10 years! It's possible! Has happened before! But am I going to worry about it? Nah...
Your comments on the rising cost of healthcare, if you will forgive me, are simply factually and theoretically incorrect. Just take the time to do the research. Healthcare costs are sky high, and only a small percentage of the reason is technology and service. We have the highest cost per capita of any nation, and our quality outcome data is down around the 30th, at best. The amount of waste in the system, estimated by healthcare practitioners themselves, is in the many billions. The cost is crippling the economy. Talk to any CEO. So, unfortunately, Patrice...it's a tad bit more complicated than you imply above.