Politics-Ethics Question
 

People disagree about things either because they disagree about initial axioms or because they agree about the axioms and disagree about their implications. Unfortunately many debates don't bother to distinguish between those two types of disagreement.

I've always thought that many political arguments are essentially about one basic axiom. Where do you stand on this question:

Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

If you answered yes to that question, my second question postulates that ten percent of all children are all of a sudden born that way. Same answer? If so what would the percentage have to be for you to change your answer?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

ermmm no.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

Good post. I think most debates boil down to simply which you value greater: equality or autonomy. The rest is just details. Your question highlights this.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for. It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of. Consequently, you really need to come up with another example of just what in the hell you are trying to prove.

leaponthis

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do?

[ QUOTE ]
It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of. Consequently, you really need to come up with another example of just what in the hell you are trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the question is, if no one is willing to take care of this baby privately, should the government still find a reason to do so?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

No.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the question is, if no one is willing to take care of this baby privately, should the government still find a reason to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no point to this question, that is the point. This government must provide for it's citizens. Every child born in this country is a citizen. We, you, me and every other citizen in this country have already made it clear that we do not discard human beings because they are disabled. Why would anyone ask a question like this? It's as if Sklansky is afraid that the Nazi party is about to rise to power...somewhere. Sklansky usually uses religion in his pompous posts. I guess he must be bored so now he chooses the handicap as bait.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, every citizen incapable of caring for themselves is provided for. Yes we do.

leaponthis

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me, every citizen incapable of caring for themselves is provided for. Yes we do.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ] it seems to be ridiculously easy to disprove this point right here, but to be sure, define "provided for" first.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we do not pay the government to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

The point of David's question is this. Which do you value more, the individual or society?

Clearly by taking care of such a baby the government is looking out for the needs of the individual. When this is expanded to include 10% or more of all children born I think David is trying to illustrate that at some point it becomes such a burden to society that we all agree that the individual should be sacrificed for the good of all.

I am sure that at some percentage everyone will say that the care of these children should not be undertaken by the government because of the burden it places on society. But what is so different between one person burdening society and 500,000? If 500,000 people is where society begins to break down because of the burden then clearly even one person is detrimental to society. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

the government should strongly encourage more folding preflop here

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
But what is so different between one person burdening society and 500,000? If 500,000 people is where society begins to break down because of the burden then clearly even one person is detrimental to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a gas is toxic when it comprises 40% of the atmosphere, but harmless in trace amounts, does it follow that we should automatically ban all emissions of that gas?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember reading any American foundational documents that guarantee what you describe.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

That is a terrible analogy. Oxygen is toxic when it comprises 40% of the atmosphere

Edit: Said gas also serves a purpose if it is being emitted by something we are using(cars etc.). These babies serve no purpose.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is a terrible analogy. Oxygen is toxic when it comprises 40% of the atmosphere

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't refute my point. In fact it serves an even clearer illustration of why the statement I quoted was fallacious; oxygen is toxic at high levels, so let's ban oxygen.

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a completely separate argument.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point of David's question is this. Which do you value more, the individual or society?

Clearly by taking care of such a baby the government is looking out for the needs of the individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Not in the way you originally meant it. In this instance, government is comforting society's needs and ignoring the individual's needs (remember, no one would choose to take care of the baby otherwise). It just so happens that an individual baby benefits collaterally.


Another way you can look at this question is: Does government exist to protect what the masses inherently want, or to decide what the masses "should" want?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

Euthanization would be humane in this case. And if 10% of the babies born in America came out this way the government would go busto trying to support them all and the healthy babies would suffer for it. It would also impede on the technological advancement of the entire species. Perhaps in the future a baby born this way could be give cybernetic limbs and be as strong as Spiderman.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you live in a foreign country but in this country the government is us and we pay those that represent us to ensure that every citizen is provided for. It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of. Consequently, you really need to come up with another example of just what in the hell you are trying to prove.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm a citizen. But I sure as heck didn't join some kind of big government-run commune like you just described.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you answered yes to that question, my second question postulates that ten percent of all children are all of a sudden born that way. Same answer? If so what would the percentage have to be for you to change your answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was gonna ignore it, but I feel the need to point out that this is an artificial scenario. Human actions, and amongst them the formation of governments, is a result of our genetic makeup and our nature. It could be said that government is an evolutionary aided defense mechanism. Occasionally producing babies born without arms and legs is not a possible result of our nature. So asking what government would do in this instance would be like asking the spider what it would do if flies didn't stick to its web. It would no longer be a spider. There's no way to guess what government (as we know it and recognize it today) should or would do in the instance where 10% of its population was born with no arms or legs, because if this instance occurred, something about our nature would have changed and "government" would no longer exist (at least as we know it).

Government is really nothing more than an instrument to act upon our instincts. If 10% of the babies were born without arms or legs, maybe the dominant instinct and thus the social norm would be to casually discard the baby. "Oops, bred another no-legger. Maybe the third time will be the charm, honey." Maybe people would love them and empathize with them anyways, and influence society (and thus government) to protect their opportunity and care about their happiness. Who knows.

You can't answer this question and assume that our biological and sociological nature will not change. There is no way to know exactly what that change would be, but to assume there would be none (just because it's easier to answer the question) is to make a bigger error.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming the US has a population of 300 million and the wealth it now owns, should a baby born with no arms and no legs, (with no chance of being fixed), but otherwise healthy, be kept alive and healthy by the government if no one else will do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If you answered yes to that question, my second question postulates that ten percent of all children are all of a sudden born that way. Same answer? If so what would the percentage have to be for you to change your answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever the percentage is where it becomes impossible to take care of these children. In that case, government should help the maximum that it is capable of helping, choosing by lottery if necessary.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If no one is willing to take care of this baby privately, should the government still find a reason to do so?

[/ QUOTE ] No.

[/ QUOTE ]If I equate "the government" with "organised society" and then equate "organised society" with "a group of people who have freely agreed on speficic principles of governance" (in other words, if I equate the "one" in the above question with "many") would the answer still be the same?

The question posed by Sklansky necessarily involves one's perceptions/definitions/"axioms" about Government.

I guess it's inevitable...

Mickey Brausch

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
In fact it serves an even clearer illustration of why the statement I quoted was fallacious; oxygen is toxic at high levels, so let's ban oxygen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue. Oxygen is necessary for our life in smaller concentrations but toxic in larger ones so it isn't inherently bad. Too much oxygen is. As for these babies, even one is a burden. 500,000 is just a big enough burden that it becomes infeasible to care for them.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose. [ QUOTE ]


The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an emotional argument. Since nearly everyone associates Hitler with evil they associate everything about him with evil. Not everything he came up with was a bad idea. Euthanizing those who can do nothing but detract from society would be a good thing for society as a whole. It's too arbitrary to figure out who can and can't do what though so this could never be put into action by even the most pragmatic of societies.

These babies can serve no purpose except to burden those who care for them. No one is willing to take care of them privately. Nothing in this world has a right to life. In this world the weak die off, why should these babies be any different?

Edit: I was wrong in my first post about the point of David's question.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to be ridiculously easy to disprove this point

[/ QUOTE ]

"..a government Of the people, For the people and BY the people.."

Go ahead and disprove it.

leaponthis

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm a citizen. But I sure as heck didn't join some kind of big government-run commune like you just described.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yes you did. "..a governement Of the people, For the people, and By the people..." Lincoln knew what that meant. Maybe you need to think about it and decide what your role in this "commune" really is.

leaponthis.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

Why did you choose to defend your point with a completely unrelated quote?

You originally said that the government is here to provide for every individual. This is completely untrue and isn't worth going into if you can't see that. Just look at your quote with different emphasis, "of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE."

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post works just fine. The government of the U.S. is the PEOPLE. If you believe that the lives of these babies are not protected under the laws of this country then you need a lesson in Civil Rights. And by protected I mean that under our laws they will be provided the life sustaining necessities until they are able to provide for themselves. Regardless of whether Sklansky or anyone else on this forum classifies them are a burden. For in fact they are not burdens they are citizens.

leaponthis

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

You have a serious misunderstanding of what Civil Rights are.

From Wikipedia on Civil Rights

[ QUOTE ]
Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to freedom of movement and the right of equal protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in there does it suggest that people have a right to live.


[ QUOTE ]
The government of the U.S. is the PEOPLE

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the people don't want to pay for the care of these babies then the government doesn't do it. David said in the OP ~if NO ONE will take care of them, should the government do it? If NO ONE will take care of them using private time or private money then this would suggest that the PEOPLE don't want them to be taken care of. You argue that the government is there to serve the people so it should not take care of the babies either.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm a citizen. But I sure as heck didn't join some kind of big government-run commune like you just described.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, yes you did. "..a governement Of the people, For the people, and By the people..." Lincoln knew what that meant. Maybe you need to think about it and decide what your role in this "commune" really is.

leaponthis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase. I didn't join voluntarily.

Everyone has the right to just be left alone. Government's sole source of power is from the people. People don't have the right to force other people to provide for another's needs. Whether it's one or 100,000.

Obviously, if there were only a few of these babies, private charities could and would care for them. With my support.

My role/obligation in society (not commune, since I'm not a communist) is to live and let live, not to try to force others to do what I think they should.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where's he derive this right from?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]
Reductio ad hitlerum
Not to mention it isn't the same thing. Nazi germany murdered people that in their twisted opinion served no purpose. In this scenario it's a decision on whether to take care of someone or not.

If no one cares enough to lift a finger to help the kid why should tax money be used to help it?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

There are two types of rights - "positive" and "negative." Negative rights are liberties which one would hold naturally without the interference of others, and the burden is upon those who seek to violate it to justify the imposition. The second form, positive rights, is actually a duty to others to provide some sort of benefit or other and the justification becomes to show how such a duty exists.

In this example we are clearly dealing with alleged positive rights, in which it must be shown that others have a duty to provide for this person. When we say someone has a right to life it's one thing to show that we cannot take that life without just cause, it's quite another though to demonstrate that we must take measures which may be beyond our will to provide for it.

We're dealing with the ethical side of the situation of course, and politically one may argue whether or not it fits within the political structure of a given nation. For example, in a democracy whether there is legislation providing for it.

Where we become lost in these questions is to substitute sound argument for emotivism, where we feel as an individual or even a collection of individuals that something should be the case based upon our personal feelings for it. This is purely fallacious though.

The bottom line here is it is extremely difficult to provide even a good argument let alone a sound one to justify the positive right to life. We cannot merely rely on platitudes such as life is intrinsically valuable and so on. In terms of freedom, if a society is to be truly free (which would be a first if one ever really were), then people need to be free to devote thier resources as they see fit.

The discussion here invariably boils down to appeals to sympathy, which is fine. No doubt many will feel sympathy for such an ill fated person and they certainly may want to help, and are free to do so. Others may not, and they must remain free to excerise their own preferences as well.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

I suppose as a logical continuation of this debate we could ask:

"Should these no limbed people be allowed to reproduce, if their offspring would have 100% chance of also having no limbs? If so, should the government be obliged to look after these children.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is the baby's "right" as a citizen to be taken care of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where's he derive this right from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. No one, not even a baby with no arms, has the right to the involuntary servitude of others.

By the way, the constitution was amended post civil war to outlaw involuntary servitude. Of course this is ignored by the polititians who came later.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

"..a government Of the people, For the people and BY the people.."

Go ahead and disprove it.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an atrociously irrelevant quote. You need to understand the definition of "government" and why your use of this quote is non-sequitur.

There are only several federally granted rights to citizens of the United States (see: The Consitution) and "to be provided for" is not one of them. Instead of asking people to disprove it, why don't you take the initiative as the claimant, and prove your assertion.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose. [ QUOTE ]


The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an emotional argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. It's not even an argument. It's just pointing out that you take a course of reasoning that was chosen also by those who supported the euthanasia in the Third Reich.

[ QUOTE ]
Since nearly everyone associates Hitler with evil they associate everything about him with evil. Not everything he came up with was a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? Though this is OT, I'd be genuinely interested...

[ QUOTE ]
Euthanizing those who can do nothing but detract from society would be a good thing for society as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and presupposes that the well being of society is the highest value there is (or at least higher than the well-being of any singluar human being). Singular well-being has to step back if the well-being of society is in danger. Human beings in themselves have no value, rather, their value is measured inasfar as they can contribute to society.

Yep, that's one way to look at the world. But it has such a [censored] of philosophical implications of which you apparently have only a very dim idea that evey sane person rather not get involved.


[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in this world has a right to life. In this world the weak die off, why should these babies be any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're of our own kind?

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it seems to be ridiculously easy to disprove this point

[/ QUOTE ]

"..a government Of the people, For the people and BY the people.."

Go ahead and disprove it.

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I'd love to. First what are you trying to prove? Second, define the party known as 'the people'.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact argument used by Hitler to justify his program of euthanasia. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention it isn't the same thing. Nazi germany murdered people that in their twisted opinion served no purpose. In this scenario it's a decision on whether to take care of someone or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That decision being based on an argument of lacking purpose. Try again.

[ QUOTE ]
If no one cares enough to lift a finger to help the kid why should tax money be used to help it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, because they're humans and it could very well be me in that spot and, following Kant, or even Peter Singer if you like him more, that's all all the reason anyone should need.
Second, I guess, differing opinions about the status of private vs. "public" support: I would hold that often people don't help because they expect the government to help. So the lack of private support is no argument that noone wants those kiddies to live, or that there would be noone stepping forward if it were clear that govt. wouldn't put forth any kind of support.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line here is it is extremely difficult to provide even a good argument let alone a sound one to justify the positive right to life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need positive rights here. The negative right to not be harmed (i.e. in extremis: killed, for whatever good) against my will is completely sufficient.

Re: Politics-Ethics Question
 

Oh, and generally...

[ QUOTE ]
These babies serve no purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

how the hell did you come up with such bull anyway? Since when is "serving a purpose" dependent on having arms and legs?!?