Politics-Ethics Question

[Anders]

leaponthis,

Do you live in The People's Republic of America, circa 2100?

[doormat]

[ QUOTE ]
I know they're dying, I know why they're dying, I have the power to prevent them dying (individually at least) and if I went over there tomorrow I could doubtless stop many of them dying, but I choose not to.

Am I a murderer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophically speaking, yes. Legally speaking, no. So let's just compromise and call you an accessory.

[leaponthis]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious or assinine? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

leaponthis

[Anders]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious or assinine? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

leaponthis

[/ QUOTE ]

Throw cancer in jail for infringing upon my right to life!

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
"govt. is expected to help because we expect it to perform the duties we installed it for.

[/ QUOTE ]

This fellow does a lot better job at this than I could ever do. Whatever he says "I second".

leaponthis

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about things like that. I was referring to the millions of people dying in Africa every day.

I know they're dying, I know why they're dying, I have the power to prevent them dying (individually at least) and if I went over there tomorrow I could doubtless stop many of them dying, but I choose not to.

Am I a murderer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, dear valued Mister,

what can I get you? Shall it be a nice and clean "Yes, because" or a nice and clean "No, because", preferrably in one sentence each?
Might be news to you, but the easy answers have grown stale over the years.
In that other case, you honestly expecting and hoping for 5 pages of well-put and well-thought of reasoning, well, I trust in your thirst for truth to lead you far enough to actually order "Essays on Actions and Events" yourself and come up with an answer.

[jimmytrick]

Yes, I would want my government to support a child born with this handicap.

Insofar as people who want to deny assistance to such children based on the thinking in the second part of your question David, I would support firing squads and confiscation of their assets to provide funding for the kids.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just about the nub of it though its not 'government if no one else will do it', but doing it by the method of government.

[ 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 answered yes but it doesn't extrapolate this way. However desirable the outcome it still not a sensible idea to attempt the impossible.

[This post is in no way intended to suggest there isn't a better method of getting what we want then by government]

chez

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I know they're dying, I know why they're dying, I have the power to prevent them dying (individually at least) and if I went over there tomorrow I could doubtless stop many of them dying, but I choose not to.


[/ QUOTE ]

fretolo,

I have not read Essays on Actions and Events, nor heard of it before now. I must say that I'm somewhat fearful of what I may find in there. Anyway, most of us in this country believe (want to believe) that we (individually at least) are not able to prevent the "dying" over there that this fellow speaks of above. If I believed as he does, that individually I could prevent many from dying, I might conclude that I was indeed a murderer.

leaponthis

[jimmytrick]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had recently about the purpose and function of government. I hold that all government, past, present, and future simply exists to maintain order so that those who posses wealth and power can continue to do so. In this case, the voice that crys "we can't support children like this because of its cost to society" is the voice of wealth (or wannabe wealth) concerned about the cost of government (read "cost of maintaning order" for government). The voice of reason will of course prevail with the argument that the cost of maintaining the handicapped is a good bargin in terms of maintaining the illusion that government is benign. In the end, the babies will be cared for not because anyone in power cares for them, but because this sort of thing quiets the masses.