Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Results (what's the right way towards Equality?)

[Mr Tree]

You can educate people without having them go to college though, or to any institution for that matter. I have friends who were homeschooled and they turned out just fine in life. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but it can be done.



Nothing's free. At least with regards to material goods and services. Somewhere, someone pays for it.

And yes, I'm American.

Wel I agree that it can be done I just consider it a basic right.

No worries bout the american question, I'm just curious. Nice to hear other opinions.

 

[Danoff]

Wel I agree that it can be done I just consider it a basic right.

You consider what to be a basic right? Grade school? Vocational training? College? University? Grad School? Law School? Medical School? Medical residency? Continuing legal education? Professional conferences?

Which courses are basic rights? Reading? Arithmetic? Writing? Algebra? Biology? Calculus? Organic Chemistry? Differential Equations? Vector math? Optimal Control theory? Imunology? Pharmacology? Spacecraft attitude control? Basket weaving? Kineseology? Private Piloting? The languages of J. R. R. Tolkien? The Music of the Grateful Dead? Homeopathy? Bible Study? Art History?

 

[Mr Tree]

You consider what to be a basic right? Grade school? Vocational training? College? University? Grad School? Law School? Medical School? Medical residency? Continuing legal education? Professional conferences?

Which courses are basic rights? Reading? Arithmetic? Writing? Algebra? Biology? Calculus? Organic Chemistry? Differential Equations? Vector math? Optimal Control theory? Imunology? Pharmacology? Spacecraft attitude control? Basket weaving? Kineseology? Private Piloting? The languages of J. R. R. Tolkien? The Music of the Grateful Dead? Homeopathy? Bible Study? Art History?

I'll describe the belgian system which is not perfect but not awefull either.

We have to get an education until age18 which is the end of highschool. While we can also get homeschooled we just have to get education until age 18.

After that we get a said set of points with these point we have the right to choose an education all courses cost points. The amount of points is chosen in this way we can reorient once or twice in our eeucational career. If you run out of points you've used your right for higher education...

This system is not perfect but I think it adresses your concerns in some way.

 

[Danoff]

After that we get a said set of points with these point we have the right to choose an education all courses cost points. The amount of points is chosen in this way we can reorient once or twice in our eeucational career. If you run out of points you've used your right for higher education...

How many points do you believe to be a basic human right and why? Explain to me why one adult owes another adult an education.

 

[mustafur]

It's funny when people claim that it's their right to someone else's labour.

I Agree the government should supply education atleast up till the end of high School but it's not a right, just like Healthcare.

 

[Imari]

Sounds like a pretty rubbish business if its employees can't do their job properly just because there's a woman working with them.

Have you met...humans? They do this sort of 🤬 a lot.

Nothing's free. At least with regards to material goods and services. Somewhere, someone pays for it.

Of course. You've just managed to make a definition that proves that a word is completely useless.

How about if we then instead used that word to make a meaningful distinction? Maybe something like a good or service that the user doesn't pay for directly, or possibly isn't even involved in paying for themselves at all? That might be useful in a conversation, and so maybe we could use that particular combination of four letters for something like that instead of writing them off as entirely without use.

Wel I agree that it can be done I just consider it a basic right.

It's not a basic right. It is a fairly sensible way to run a society though. There's a difference between a good idea and a basic right.

 

[Mr Tree]

How many points do you believe to be a basic human right and why? Explain to me why one adult owes another adult an education.

I explained... But I'll try again...
A basic number of points with wich one can follow a set of lessons that form up to be an education. For example to become a doctor, dentist, engineer....

And I never said one adult owes an other adult something... Where did I write that? When you fall for the fallacy that if I pay taxes and taxes pay for something I pay for it is useless and makes for a sad and cruel society in my opinion.

It's funny when people claim that it's their right to someone else's labour.

I Agree the government should supply education atleast up till the end of high School but it's not a right, just like Healthcare.

Where did I claim right to someone else his labour?

I'm sorry but your last sentence kind of shows you to be either brainwashed or a bad person.

If you don't even believe basic healthcare to be a right... That concept of healthcare not beeing a basic right while spending bilions on the defense system. It shows your fear and lack of understanding of socialist idea's ....


@Imari if we think education should be available to all a'f that's a good way to run society, then why not consider this a basic right? (While I realise it isn't a basic right around the world) what would be the reason not to make this a basic right? (I'm honnestly interested in your idea of how we should consider something a basic right or not)

 

[mustafur]

Your not understanding rights here, if you say healthcare and education is a right then your saying you have a right to a Doctors and Teachers labour.

I also never said I didn't want any of those things, your putting words in my mouth.

Also Brainwashed and Bad person?

Who are you to judge?
your the one claiming a right to labour here.

 

[Mr Tree]

Your not understanding rights here, if you say healthcare and education is a right then your saying you have a right to a Doctors and Teachers labour.

I also never said I didn't want any of those things, your putting words in my mouth.

Also Brainwashed and Bad person?

Who are you to judge?
your the one claiming a right to labour here.

How do I claim right to labour?
Society pays.said doctor right?
If I'm sick why wouldn't it be my right to see a doctor?


Sorry if I put words in your mouth then but if you don't consider it to be a right hiw do you ensure every sick person cannsee a doctor? Regardless of fi'mnancial situation? Or do you believe that if you.can't personally pay a doctor you don't have the right to a doctor?


Also I shouldn't have written shows you to be.. that's factually incorrect. I should've written 'makes me believe you to be a...

 

[BobK]

How do I claim right to labour?
Society pays.said doctor right?
If I'm sick why wouldn't it be my right to see a doctor?


Sorry if I put words in your mouth then but if you don't consider it to be a right hiw do you ensure every sick person cannsee a doctor? Regardless of fi'mnancial situation? Or do you believe that if you.can't personally pay a doctor you don't have the right to a doctor?


Also I shouldn't have written shows you to be.. that's factually incorrect. I should've written 'makes me believe you to be a...

Quite simply, if no doctor is willing to see you then you are arguing that a doctor should be compelled to see you. That is slavery.

If you are claiming something supplied by somebody else to be a right then you are willing to compel that person to supply your "right".

 

[PeterJB]

For slavery it pays pretty well.

 

[Imari]

@Imari if we think education should be available to all a'f that's a good way to run society, then why not consider this a basic right?

Just because it's good means that you deserve to have it given to you? I'll be expecting my cake in the mailbox in the morning. I'm saying that if a society can afford it and deems it to be worthwhile then it's probably a good thing, and in general making at least a minimum amount of education free to all is of overall benefit to the society.

That doesn't mean that I think that humans have a right to education. You have no moral or legal right to an education. It's not even in the same league as things like food, water and shelter, things which in most climates are required or else you die very quickly. And arguably those things aren't rights either, as you will quickly find out if you're ever lost in the forest.

Humans create cultures and societies the way they do because they have overall benefits for the group. It doesn't mean however that you're entitled to anything other than what you create and earn for yourself.

 

[TenEightyOne]

ou have no moral or legal right to an education

Surely an education, whoever it's received from, includes how to cut up one's food, how to use society's language, how to keep one's sparkly botty clean, and so on and so forth. I'd agree that there's no moral right to (or perhaps I mean no moral obligation-to-provide) such lessons as the names of all the European monarchs since 1066 but surely there's a moral right/obligation to a certain amount of education?

It doesn't mean however that you're entitled to anything other than what you create and earn for yourself.

You could argue that taking part in the society earn's the protection of that society? We still punish misdemeanour with social exclusion, even now. Although, according to the Daily Mail, most prison cells have better games consoles than my living room.

 

[ryzno]

Although, according to the Daily Mail, most prison cells have better games consoles than my living room.

Don't they have to buy that stuff?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Don't they have to buy that stuff?

I believe so, but that's not the point. Why not allow them to pop down to Tescos for their snap while we're at it?

 

[Imari]

Surely an education, whoever it's received from, includes how to cut up one's food, how to use society's language, how to keep one's sparkly botty clean, and so on and so forth. I'd agree that there's no moral right to (or perhaps I mean no moral obligation-to-provide) such lessons as the names of all the European monarchs since 1066 but surely there's a moral right/obligation to a certain amount of education?

Why?

In this society where there's a moral right to education, who specifically should provide this education and how are they chosen? What happens if nobody wants to provide this education, or there are not enough teachers to go around? How is it determined how much of an education there is a moral right to? Does this change from year to year as more things become basic or assumed knowledge, or is it always the same set of fundamental skills?

I don't see that a society has an obligation to make sure that you can cut up your food and wipe your bum. Your parents, perhaps, but there's a whole thing there on the implied agreement of having a child that I'm pretty sure is well outside the scope of this thread.

 

[Mr Tree]

Quite simply, if no doctor is willing to see you then you are arguing that a doctor should be compelled to see you. That is slavery.

If you are claiming something supplied by somebody else to be a right then you are willing to compel that person to supply your "right".

First of you're forgetting the hypocratic oath... (Or how do youbwrite the word in english) a doctor swears an oath to help a person in need before he even can apply for his liscense. So he should be morally compelled to help you.

If a doctor doesn't want to help all people (for example diffrent race, belief system, beeing gay), well that person should not be a doctor a'd should je considere an awefull person out society can do without.

Again how is that slavery? We still live in a society that has a judeciaty system to protect the right of the minority against the oppression of the majority. This system, rightfully so, forces people who supply services to society, average jobs like a bakery or boutcher but also doctors and dentists etc. to supply their service to everyone within this society. I'm still yet to see the link with slavery...

All I yezr as rebuttels is pretty much. I really like that idea but I'm not going as far to he ok to force people to be descent people because that would be,.... Slavery apperently....

Why would a doctor not want to give help to me but a reason based on discrimination? He get's payed just as well... Isn't that the endgoal.of out job? Make money?

I really don't understa'd your fear. The only people who I can see beeing 'negatively' affected by having to supply a service to all that pay (and society would pay) are people who want to discriminate. Off coarse I could just miss something so if you can provide me with a descent reason I might he compelled to change my mind. But so far all I've read are hypotheticals about situations you label with loaded words as slavery without showing me how it ever would be slavery

Why?

In this society where there's a moral right to education, who specifically should provide this education and how are they chosen? What happens if nobody wants to provide this education, or there are not enough teachers to go around? How is it determined how much of an education there is a moral right to? Does this change from year to year as more things become basic or assumed knowledge, or is it always the same set of fundamental skills?

I don't see that a society has an obligation to make sure that you can cut up your food and wipe your bum. Your parents, perhaps, but there's a whole thing there on the implied agreement of having a child that I'm pretty sure is well outside the scope of this thread.

Why would it be weird to adapt out rights to our societies ever evolving nature? 40years back a college education was almost not nessecary, this day and age you're hravely dizadvantaged if yoy don't have a college degree. If society changes whe have the moral obligation to change our 'supply' of services.
We want to progress right? If want to we need to inscentivise progress not halt it... We need to educate our children and we need to make sure what they learn is correct and not an idea from some holyboook....

And the claim about to little teachers and who and..... I find the to be irrelevant to the discussion, if you lack teacherd it means that society doesn't treat teachers accirding to their value. This is something that has allready started. It's a screw up by society not hecause we believe everyine shoyld get education. On what education we should supply. I explained a possible system a few posts back... This is kot as impossible as yoyr government leads you to believe, the entire devzlopped world has some form of descent governlent subsidised college education and they all have singlepayer healthcare. So I really don't see the practical issues and will never understand why many americans think their case is so special that such systems would never work...

 

[jake2013guy]

The problem is that Equal Results is more tangible than Equal Opportunity. You'll always have people complaining due to Unequal Results. It is far more difficult to collate Equal Results into something mathematical and to me, that's why things like the "Pay Gap" argument exists.

 

[Danoff]

In this society where there's a moral right to education, who specifically should provide this education and how are they chosen?

It can only apply to children. The parents/guardians of the children are responsible for providing their education. I can't come up with any reason why one adult can compel another adult to educate them.

First of you're forgetting the hypocratic oath... (Or how do youbwrite the word in english) a doctor swears an oath to help a person in need before he even can apply for his liscense. So he should be morally compelled to help you.

There's no reason why a doctor should have to take an oath to be allowed to be a doctor. I can't come up with any reason why one adult can compel another adult to treat their wounds/illnesses.

If a doctor doesn't want to help all people (for example diffrent race, belief system, beeing gay), well that person should not be a doctor a'd should je considere an awefull person out society can do without.

This is an individual you're talking about, an individual who has not harmed anyone.

Again how is that slavery? We still live in a society that has a judeciaty system to protect the right of the minority against the oppression of the majority. This system, rightfully so, forces people who supply services to society, average jobs like a bakery or boutcher but also doctors and dentists etc. to supply their service to everyone within this society. I'm still yet to see the link with slavery...

Compelling someone to work on your behalf is slavery. Compelling someone to pay someone to work on your behalf is also slavery.

Why would a doctor not want to give help to me but a reason based on discrimination? He get's payed just as well... Isn't that the endgoal.of out job? Make money?

Any reason he or she dreams up.

So I really don't see the practical issues and will never understand why many americans think their case is so special that such systems would never work...

I might have missed it, but I'm not sure anyone here is saying that another system doesn't work. I'm saying that other systems, systems of institutionalized slavery, are immoral. The southern half of the US did quite well for a long time using slavery to boost their standard of living. It can work, for sure.

 

[Mr Tree]

It can only apply to children. The parents/guardians of the children are responsible for providing their education. I can't come up with any reason why one adult can compel another adult to educate them.



There's no reason why a doctor should have to take an oath to be allowed to be a doctor. I can't come up with any reason why one adult can compel another adult to treat their wounds/illnesses.



This is an individual you're talking about, an individual who has not harmed anyone.



Compelling someone to work on your behalf is slavery. Compelling someone to pay someone to work on your behalf is also slavery.



Any reason he or she dreams up.



I might have missed it, but I'm not sure anyone here is saying that another system doesn't work. I'm saying that other systems, systems of institutionalized slavery, are immoral. The southern half of the US did quite well for a long time using slavery to boost their standard of living. It can work, for sure.

Not in all countries do they take this oath but here the wikipedia page do some.more resaerch if you find the source to be unreliable... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath


He has not done wrong? It's not wrong to let a person suffer if you're a doctor and can change that fact? Isn't that awefull behavior? No he's not a slave. I can't call him up any time and make said doctor work for me... how in earth is that what I call for? We.have doctors and if a doctor is working (the hours he chooses!) He has no right to deny me service for whatever he can dream of... That would be discrimination...

I'm baffled to be honnest with the strawmans you create. And I am baffled you believe a doctor isn't a bad person if he'd rather let someone suffer then help them....
Mindblowing...


Edit: I can't stress.this enough and al repeating mysemf how can do we.condider a doctor who refuses to treat someone as 'he hasn't.harmed anyone'....

In belgiul it's actually illegal to let someone die if yoy realise his life is in danger and you can change it... So a doctor not treating someone imo is about as immoral as it gets.

 

[Danoff]

Not in all countries do they take this oath but here the wikipedia page do some.more resaerch if you find the source to be unreliable... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I'm saying that it's immoral to force someone to take that oath in order to allow them to practice medicine.

He has not done wrong? It's not wrong to let a person suffer if you're a doctor and can change that fact? Isn't that awefull behavior?

It's not fantastic behavior, but it's not immoral. It would be more awful to compel that doctor to do something against their will.

No he's not a slave. I can't call him up any time and make said doctor work for me... how in earth is that what I call for? We.have doctors and if a doctor is working (the hours he chooses!) He has no right to deny me service for whatever he can dream of... That would be discrimination...

Why does he have no right to discriminate against you?

I'm baffled to be honnest with the strawmans you create. And I am baffled you believe a doctor isn't a bad person if he'd rather let someone suffer then help them....
Mindblowing...

I'm not saying I'd want to be their friend, but it would be immoral to force them to do something against their will. It's not a strawman, that's what you're advocating.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm saying that it's immoral to force someone to take that oath in order to allow them to practice medicine.



It's not fantastic behavior, but it's not immoral. It would be more awful to compel that doctor to do something against their will.



Why does he have no right to discriminate against you?



I'm not saying I'd want to be their friend, but it would be immoral to force them to do something against their will. It's not a strawman, that's what you're advocating.

I'd classify it as immoral. Not helping a fellow human beeing in need is imo textbook immoral.

And why one shoyldn't be able to discriminate? Because we like to have equal oppertunity...

If we let people who provide services to society discriminate it means not everyone has the same oppertunities.

Considering that statement it looks like you don't even like equality in anyway and prefer some form of anarchy.

Edit: and on forcing him to help people is immoral. How is telling immoral people to not take with high moral and ethical standard jobs in anyway immoral.

It's like beeing tollerant to intollerance....

 

[Danoff]

I'd classify it as immoral. Not helping a fellow human beeing in need is imo textbook immoral.

...based on what? And did you realize that you just killed someone in Africa right now by not donating that quarter in your pocket to Sally Struthers?

And why one shoyldn't be able to discriminate? Because we like to have equal oppertunity...

I think you're underestimating the degree of torture that can be for someone with a specific belief system.

If we let people who provide services to society discriminate it means not everyone has the same oppertunities.

No, it means that not everyone is treated equally in society... which is true no matter what you attempt to do.

Considering that statement it looks like you don't even like equality in anyway and prefer some form of anarchy.

Now who's building strawmen?

Edit: and on forcing him to help people is immoral. How is telling immoral people to not take with high moral and ethical standard jobs in anyway immoral.

It's like beeing tollerant to intollerance....

You're not telling them, you're forcing them. Someone wants to cure illnesses in people who need it, but only the people they choose. You're telling them that unless they also treat people they do not want to help that they cannot treat the people they want to help. That's what it means to force someone to take an oath that they will help everyone in order to be allowed to help anyone. That rule is ultimately enforced at gunpoint.

 

[Mr Tree]

...based on what? And did you realize that you just killed someone in Africa right now by not donating that quarter in your pocket to Sally Struthers?



I think you're underestimating the degree of torture that can be for someone with a specific belief system.



No, it means that not everyone is treated equally in society... which is true no matter what you attempt to do.



Now who's building strawmen?



You're not telling them, you're forcing them. Someone wants to cure illnesses in people who need it, but only the people they choose. You're telling them that unless they also treat people they do not want to help that they cannot treat the people they want to help. That's what it means to force someone to take an oath that they will help everyone in order to be allowed to help anyone. That rule is ultimately enforced at gunpoint.

Name one concrete reason to not help someone. And no I believe is not a reason. We have seperated church and state so we.could form an esual society so if those people don't like it in the civilised world I hear Saudi-arabia or some state like that is ideal for said person...

Seriously why not helping a person in need is immoral?
Wel simply whatever benefitd mankind is moral whatever hurts mankind is immoral.

Helping someone in need benifits mankind... Thus moral

Not helping someone in need hurts mankind... Thus immoral

What's.so hard to grasp.about that?
All I can think of is people not.willing to help because of the other persons political, religious or sexual orientation. All things that are no reason not to help said person in any way. So if tou can come up with a reason not.to help someone please do but you've yet to show a legitemate reason.

A baker can't choose who he sells to and who not, a store can't descide who to sell to and a restaurant can't choose who to serve and who not. Every place that does allow this discrimination is in effect a theocrasy and that's proven to be pretty much the worst governingsystem this world has seen.


Edit: that rule is enforced at gunpoint? I'm sorry you're.a troll right?
You realise we have a judeciary system. We wouldn't execute someone but if he has no liscense and get's caught practicing medicine he gets a fine or a prison penalty...

 

[Danoff]

Name one concrete reason to not help someone.

Whatever the reason is that you didn't just transfer $100 to an African food/malaria/contraception drive.

Seriously why not helping a person in need is immoral?

Well, for starters, and the easiest way to explain it, is that you have the power to help someone in need every second of your life. It is impossible to do so, and to require it of you would be to require you to forgo your own interests entirely.

Wel simply whatever benefitd mankind is moral whatever hurts mankind is immoral.

Define "benefit".

What's.so hard to grasp.about that?

See above.

All I can think of is people not.willing to help because of the other persons political, religious or sexual orientation. All things that are no reason not to help said person in any way. So if tou can come up with a reason not.to help someone please do but you've yet to show a legitemate reason.

Whatever your reason for not helping someone just a second ago was, that's a legitimate reason.

A baker can't choose who he sells to and who not, a store can't descide who to sell to and a restaurant can't choose who to serve and who not. Every place that does allow this discrimination is in effect a theocrasy and that's proven to be pretty much the worst governingsystem this world has seen.

Allowing people to be free to act as they see fit is not a theocracy. That's another strawman.

 

[Mr Tree]

Whatever the reason is that you didn't just transfer $100 to an African food/malaria/contraception drive.



Well, for starters, and the easiest way to explain it, is that you have the power to help someone in need every second of your life. It is impossible to do so, and to require it of you would be to require you to forgo your own interests entirely.



Define "benefit".



See above.



Whatever your reason for not helping someone just a second ago was, that's a legitimate reason.



Allowing people to be free to act as they see fit is not a theocracy. That's another strawman.

Because sending all my money to africa would also mean the end of my life...
On top of the fact that this actually is a false analogy as sending money to africa is me losing resources and the doctor helping said person is him gaining resources...

So my reason to not send money to africa is not valid as a reason for the doctor to not help a person...

Again give me a concrete reason... Or are yoy to ashamed to come out for your opinion as you know it wouldn't be a valid reason...

Allowing people to discriminate based on their religion is not far from that theocracy but yeah that was a bit hyperbolic sorry.


And then you seriously like to question if a docror helping a person in need is moral?

And again how do you claim a doctor leaving a person in agonising pain, just because he finds that person not worthy of treatment for whatever reason the doctor sees fit, as not harmfull for mankind?

You have the chance to help a person every second hahahahaha, yes but at what cost? My own life? My own oppertunity to feed myself? Seriously arguing in these hypoteticals is irrelevant and usually only happens if people are ashamed of their opinions. So please spill your opinion or stop trolling.we can keep making up hypoteticals to counter eachother but it would just be strawmans...

 

[Danoff]

Because sending all my money to africa would also mean the end of my life...
On top of the fact that this actually is a false analogy as sending money to africa is me losing resources and the doctor helping said person is him gaining resources...

$100 is all of your money?

I didn't realize the only way you were arguing that the doctor could be compelled to help someone was if the doctor was paid. But regardless, when you send money to Africa you may get a personalized postcard in return. The gratitude that you feel should be worth more to you than your $100.

Ultimately, money is time and labor. That's all it is, just in paper form that's easy to hand to someone else. A doctor is telling you that it is not worth the time and labor that is being offered for them to give their time and labor in return. You demand that they take the time and labor compensation that they have said is not enough, and give time and labor in exchange. You're not returning as much resources to the person as they think is just compensation. In other words, they think they're losing out on the deal. How is it fundamentally different if they lose more or less?

You've not distinguished my example... even a little.

So my reason to not send money to africa is not valid as a reason for the doctor to not help a person...

Equally as valid.

Again give me a concrete reason... Or are yoy to ashamed to come out for your opinion as you know it wouldn't be a valid reason...

I gave you one. You dismissed it before you thought about it.

And then you seriously like to question if a docror helping a person in need is moral?

When did I ever imply that it would be immoral to help someone?

And again how do you claim a doctor leaving a person in agonising pain, just because he finds that person not worthy of treatment for whatever reason the doctor sees fit, as not harmfull for mankind?

Who said anything about mankind? There is someone in agonizing pain in Africa (or probably within 20 miles of you) right now. You could get on a flight and go help them. Why are you not leaving?

 

[Mr Tree]

$100 is all of your money?

I didn't realize the only way you were arguing that the doctor could be compelled to help someone was if the doctor was paid. But regardless, when you send money to Africa you may get a personalized postcard in return. The gratitude that you feel should be worth more to you than your $100.

Ultimately, money is time and labor. That's all it is, just in paper form that's easy to hand to someone else. A doctor is telling you that it is not worth the time and labor that is being offered for them to give their time and labor in return. You demand that they take the time and labor compensation that they have said is not enough, and give time and labor in exchange. You're not returning as much resources to the person as they think is just compensation. In other words, they think they're losing out on the deal. How is it fundamentally different if they lose more or less?

You've not distinguished my example... even a little.



Equally as valid.



I gave you one. You dismissed it before you thought about it.



When did I ever imply that it would be immoral to help someone?



Who said anything about mankind? There is someone in agonizing pain in Africa (or probably within 20 miles of you) right now. You could get on a flight and go help them. Why are you not leaving?

You realise the doctor kind of descides how much money to ask? What reason could there be for the same treatment be worth with one person and not be worth with the other? Because this is what you claim.

If not you don't even realise how the civilised world handles healthcare and you'd just be arguing against your imagination if a descenr healthcaresystem.

Also the reason you think of is for example christians refusing to serve gay people? Or are you again just going to deal in strawman hypoteticals?

 

[Danoff]

You realise the doctor kind of descides how much money to ask?

Oh, so you're cool if they ask for $1M to treat a gay person but only $100 to treat a heterosexual? I didn't think so. Why don't you try vetting your responses against your own arguments?

What reason could there be for the same treatment be worth with one person and not be worth with the other? Because this is what you claim.

Whatever reason you want. Have you ever given to charity? Why did you give to that charity and not another? Have you ever decided to work for a company? Why did you decide to work for them and not another? Why is one cause worth more to you than another?

If not you don't even realise how the civilised world handles healthcare and you'd just be arguing against your imagination if a descenr healthcaresystem.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, something got lost in translation.

Also the reason you think of is for example christians refusing to serve gay people? Or are you again just going to deal in strawman hypoteticals?

You and I right now, this very instant, are refusing to help people in need. Why are we doing that? I'll tell you why I am, and then I'll tell you why you are. And then I'll tell you why you think this is different from the healthcare example.

I'm choosing not to help certain people in need because I realize that I am not obliged to. My life belongs to me, and I can spend it how I see fit. So when I give my time and labor (via money or literal time and labor) to charity, I do so having researched a charity that I like... based on characteristics I choose according to my own personal opinions or beliefs. I limit how much time and labor I give based on whatever my comfort level is, recognizing that there is nothing inconsistent with my moral philosophy by doing so.

You choose not to help certain people in need because you view it abstractly as a problem that is too large for one person to solve. You feel obliged to help, but know that you can't do it by yourself, so you throw your hands up put your obligation onto others in the form of "society" and say to yourself that since you can't make enough of a difference, it's not your problem. You then choose not to apply this reasoning to specific case scenarios (which is a real problem if you're presented with a specific case scenario in Africa) and think that it is inhuman to pass by a specific person who is in need, despite the fact that it is somehow not inhuman to pass by 10,000 specific people who are in need. You allow this dichotomy to persist by choosing not to evaluate these positions against themselves because it is an uncomfortable thing to think about.

You differentiate healthcare because you can personalize it. The people in Africa are faceless people in a far off place and could not be you, personally, needing help. A doctor choosing not to help people in Africa won't be denying services to you. But a doctor in your country choosing not to help people who look or think like you do could be you, and that bothers you, because you fundamentally believe that your well being is the responsibility of others, which is wrong.

How'd I do? Is it wrong? I know you'll say it's wrong and try to give examples as to why it's wrong. I'm interested to hear your reasons because right now that's my working hypothesis on your mental state.

 

[WhoosierGirl]

You realise the doctor kind of descides how much money to ask?

Yes and No, if you have insurance coverage the insurance company will determine how much each visit, test and procedure will cost. How much you will pay is determined by your coverage plan. If you don't have insurance coverage and have no ability to pay, you go to the emergency room (be kind to your nurse ), you will be evaluated and treated. Any care needed after that is on how you can pay for that treatment, the hospital and healthcare industry as a whole will absorb the cost.....and pass it on to the rest of us.

If you don't have insurance coverage and have no ability to pay, how is a doctor "gaining resources" by treating you? How much money should a doctor be morally obligated to lose to treat you?

How much of your personal wealth would you give away to treat an alcoholic who will die without a liver transplant but, will not stop drinking? I don't know of a single surgeon I have ever worked with that can foot that bill.

I have never witnessed a doctor or nurse refuse care because of a patients race. political affiliation, religion, sex or sexual orientation.