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.