A More General Way To State My Two Last Axiom Questions

[David Sklansky]

1. Do you believe the higher mammals, and perhaps birds, deserve consideration in more than minute ways if helping, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans.

2. Do you believe that scarce, extremely important humanitarian assets such as pain pills or MRIs should be allocated depending on how badly one needs it (at least within our country) or should those who lived their life recklessly be denied these things in favor of those who need it somewhat less, but did mainly the right things.

In this second question I assume that not everyone can get the treatment. And I offer two different types of recklessness. Dangerous behavior in disregard of the obvious increased chances you will need the treatment, or lazy behavior in that, in spite of your talents, you choose to live your life in a way where you won't be able to pay for those treatments. Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior. In fact regarding the first category of recklessness, the responsible guy, if the treatment is withheld from him, can directly blame the first guy.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe the higher mammals, and perhaps birds, deserve consideration in more than minute ways if helping, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans.

2. Do you believe that scarce, extremely important humanitarian assets such as pain pills or MRIs should be allocated depending on how badly one needs it (at least within our country) or should those who lived their life recklessly be denied these things in favor of those who need it somewhat less, but did mainly the right things.

In this second question I assume that not everyone can get the treatment. And I offer two different types of recklessness. Dangerous behavior in disregard of the obvious increased chances you will need the treatment, or lazy behavior in that, in spite of your talents, you choose to live your life in a way where you won't be able to pay for those treatments. Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior. In fact regarding the first category of recklessness, the responsible guy, if the treatment is withheld from him, can directly blame the first guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright, I'll give this a shot.

1. As to this question (both really) far more details are needed to be certain. Generally speaking, and all other things being equal (important point), I think its pretty clear that whatever ethical beliefs we follow they would include the belief that our species comes first: if you see a hurt human and a hurt bird, human first. Even if its a badly hurt bird and a lightly hurt human, which is more like your question. Your question specifically would depend on a lot of things: How much help for the animals, how much hurt for the humans; can the humans be otherwise compensated; is it a species that is special to many, etc... until finally you come to the point where any harm to the humans is so small and the benefit to the species so significant, that the answer must change.

2. This requires more set up details too. If I were a doctor and it was my duty to treat only one and all other things were equal (again important) - I'd first ask what idiot designed this particular health care system - then I would be inclined to help the "healthy life" guy first. But I am torn even there becasue people who do dangerous things are generally the innovators in society. You will note however that I do accept that when faced with such an unavoidable choice - the benefit should go to the more deserving - how ever one may define that...Whichever way I went the history of their health care would be near the bottom of my list of considerations - what if its also true that one is a mass-murderer and the other a famous healer? But still I would be more mad at any system that created this dilemma and would mostly seek ways out of the box/a new system.

PS - I still hope you are going to respond to my post in the "saving poker" thread.

Next...

[mjkidd]

Sklansky -- Neither pain pills nor MRIs are scarce or particularly dear. You need to be thinking about hearts, kidneys and livers here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
That contains the key point. If your country has given him reason to believe he will gain preferential treatment by his behavior then he should gain that treatment.

However in any decent country imo it would be clear that he gets no preferential treatment - either he pays for it or relies on a system based on clinical need.

chez

[jjacky]

1. yes

2. a) if someone willingly increases his chances to need medical treatment he shouldn't get the pills with as high a priority as other people.
b) if someone ist just a little lazy that should not count as reckless behavior.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

the "punishment" can even be more direct. say we can rate the intensity of the pain with numbers. the higher the number the more intense is the pain (or the more urgent is the medication).
the healthy life guy has an intensity level of 100.
the other guy would have a level of 90 if he lived responsible, but his behavior made his suffering more severe and now he rates 110 on the pain scale.

if the reckless person gets the medication, he gets a reward for his behavior while the other guy gets punished. in quite a direct way. imo this can't be desirable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
if the reckless person gets the medication, he gets a reward for his behavior while the other guy gets punished. in quite a direct way. imo this can't be desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]
but its a moral judgement about how we think othe rpeople behave rather than anything to do with the problem bein self-inflicted.

For example there may be problems associated with having children but most who would argue against smokers wouldn't argue against mothers.

Also those who suggest the smoker shouldn't be rewarded because they are an effective drain on the system wouldn't argue that smokers shgould be rewarded if they are a net benefit on the system (as is possibly the case in the UK and certainly could be the case).

chez

[ILoveShowGirls]

All the evidence on tobacco related costs and tax take shows you to be completely correct as far as the UK is concerned.

In fact an average UK smokers lifetime medical costs from general taxation are around 12% less than the costs of a non smoker, thanks to this subsidy

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the evidence, I feel pretty certain that I can say that it is not possible that the drinkers that I previously referred to, are subsidising the treatment of the people that you say I claim concern for.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
All the evidence on tobacco related costs and tax take shows you to be completely correct as far as the UK is concerned.

In fact an average UK smokers lifetime medical costs from general taxation are around 12% less than the costs of a non smoker, thanks to this subsidy

[/ QUOTE ]
1 out of 2 aint bad [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


but I'm not too bothered about the actual facts but the paucity of the argument. Most who say they are against equal treatment for drinkers/smokers because they are a drain don't argue for preferential treatment for them if they are subsidising everyone else.

It appears they are being inconsistant but I suspect its more a consistant use of any old rhetoric to enact their moral opinion.

chez

[ILoveShowGirls]

I do see and agree with your point Chez, and I try not to allow myself to push moral opinions when I have no evidence for them. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

To be honest, I would have no problem with preferential treatment for smokers by the NHS. By paying so much tax on their vice they are in effect insuring society against the cost of their illnesses and paying a hefty premium to do so.

I somehow doubt that any major political party would propose anything like that even though they would know it is completely justifiable.
With hypocrisy being so rife in the political classes, they are much more likely to insist that smokers receive no treatment until they give up smoking, because cigarettes are seen by the population at large as a harmful and immoral vice as well as a public nuisance and health hazard, and being tough on smokers is likely to prove a vote winner.

Anyway, I should have been more specific in my initial points instead of floundering around with emotional arguments, because I suspect that you and I are much closer to being in agreement than our first exchange would suggest.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]