Politics-Ethics Question

[Xhad]

[ 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?

[Run Screamin]

[ 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.

[blackize]

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.

[Xhad]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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?

[A_C_Slater]

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.

[Al68]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ 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.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ 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