The US Senate sets to vote on a health care bill over Christmas this Tuesday after what have been months of fierce political debate. As the opposition warned of “socialized medicine” and “death panels”, public support for “ObamaCare” and the president himself understandably plummeted.
Although America’s health care is among the most expensive yet one of the most restricted systems in the world, people began to fear that under the Democrats’ plans, they would face a further decline in quality against ever rising costs. Strangely enough, people also indicated that by majority that health care today is too costly on the whole and that it placed a serious burden on the already fragile US economy. President Obama repeatedly stressed that America’s health care is in desperate need of reform but critics seem to have a point when they say that the Democrats will only make it more expensive.
Unfortunately, Republicans prefer instead to devise little doomsday scenarios and warn people that their elderly will soon be put to death if the Democrats have their way. They point at countries as Canada and the United Kingdom and say, “look how bad things are over there.” In fact, health care in these both countries is far from terrible.
In spite of the rather communist qualities of the British National Health Service, it operates at a lower cost per capita ($2,560, compared to $6,096 for the US in 2007) while providing better care (PDF). Canada on the other hand, while much cheaper per capita than the American system, provides an approximately similar quality of care. It would appear then that a collectivization of health care doesn’t necessarily make things better or worse. A lot of other factors are in play.
Rather than denouncing “socialized medicine” as being impractical therefore, opponents should point out that it is immoral.
The NHS in Britain was established after the end of World War II, in 1948, with the express purpose of providing health care to all, “regardless of wealth.” Its principles were that the service should “meet the needs of everyone,” “be free at the point of delivery” and “be based on clinical need, not ability to pay.” This gave all Britons a right to proper care, no matter whether they were able to afford it or not. Need, not ability became the standard according to which care would henceforth be distributed.
This is a strange twist of ethics. Imagine that the law were to give people a right to much more basic needs than health care such as food and shelter. No such laws exist of course, for if people indeed are entitled to such rights, others must inevitably provide for them at their own expense.
Granting people a right to health care demands that others provide such care, for free if necessary. Only a government can allocate care under such conditions for few individual doctors and nurses would go about their work unpaid any more than a supermarket would remain in business for long if it is to meet peoples’ “right to food”.
Even the Republicans, supposedly the champions of the free market, dare not question the alleged right to health care in the United States. Probably because they know how most people would respond to such criticism: “Should we just stand by then and let people die?” they’ll ask
Perhaps proponents of collectivization are only more than willing to pay so that others need not insure themselves but as long as they can’t answer the simple question, “Why shouldn’t we?” to their own charge without speaking of non-existent rights and undeserved charity, no man should be held responsible for the health and care of others against his own choice.
That is what opponents of “ObamaCare” should have argued. Because they didn’t, collectivized health care is now likely to become a reality in the United States.
“You’re bordering closely here on defending that whatever the majority decides is therefore righteous. Majority rule is not a justification in itself, nor is “compromise” or “consensus”.”
I do not believe something is righteous just because the majority says so. But this is an emotional value. Fact remains that the modern system works on the principle that what the majority wills is enforced without hurting the rights of the minority. And here is where we fundamentally disagree. I do not believe that paying a certain amount of one’s income hurts a person livelihood or ability to pursue happiness. I believe that this mild redistribution instead guarantees that particular right for everyone. Rights are fundamentally defined from needs; they exist to provide the means from which one can build one’s own happiness. The idea that loaning a minor bit of one’s means to provide a major part of another’s is somehow immoral is fundamentally childish.
“When force is not restrained, and even retaliatory force alone is left in the hands of private citizens, society would soon degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.”
And that is fundamentally how our first laws were created. Today of course the law has taken on many different facets. However, just as the lack of law creates anarchy so does the lack of justice (or at least what is perceived as justice). Lack of basic care, especially in a wealthy society such as ours, breed anger and discontent. And if those emotions get widespread enough there is no law that can stop the process.
“Indeed. In such cases, reality will be their arbiter.”
No, no and very much no. Since their solutions are all based on their perceived reality you cannot claim that the mystical force of reality will appear to create order (unless you turned into a fatalist when I wasn’t looking). In a modern system, debate followed (normally) by compromise and consensus constitutes the arbiter.
“I believe that existence exists, objectively.”
I actually agree. I’m just highly skeptical that it is possible for anyone short omnipotence to perceive it. Human rationality isn’t something we’re born with; it is something we have to learn. Since we learn in different ways from different sources in different environments we take notice of different facets of reality. This is not mathematics
Not quite, and the latter part is very important. Notice the difference between a “republic” and a “democracy”. None of the modern nation-states are full democracies. The law always takes precedence over the whim of the majority.
That’s not quite what I’m saying though. I don’t want to claim that it’s immoral to help people; what I’m saying is that it’s immoral to force people to do so.
Only when people presume—which is quite the case today though!—that they somehow have the right to receive such basic care, i.e.: that others must provide for them. That I contest.
Let me first say that the “mystical” and “reality” are perfect opposites in my view. It is exactly the mystical belief that “somehow” things will get done in blissful violation of objective reality that so upsets philosophy today.
Second, I agree that men might perceive reality differently and will therefore come up with different solutions to the same problem. But in the end, reality will dictate which of those solutions work and which do not. There’s nothing mystical about that.
Why, you have your eyes, your touch, your smell, and, exactly as you state, you have learned to think rationally (or at least, you have the ability to do so); you have learned to identify that which your senses perceive.
Quite right, but that does not mean that there are also different realities in fact.
“The law always takes precedence over the whim of the majority.”
The law is changed, maybe not quite at the whims of the majority, but by the people the majority elects to represent them. The system is created so that this process is arduous and complicated, as to slow down and changes that may be harmful. However, despite the fact that the law takes precedent in theory, the whims of the majority hold de facto power. Public matters, that’s what the word republic means.
“Only when people presume—which is quite the case today though!—that they somehow have the right to receive such basic care, i.e.: that others must provide for them. That I contest. ”
And that is your right. But once again, de facto morality is formed out of consensus. There exists no objective moral laws based on some stonewall reality. In this case, if the people think they have the right then they have the right, especially since this isn’t a communist revolution and a healthcare system as such doesn’t hurt anyone’s chance of happiness, despite your claims to the contrary. Democracy, if they want it they get it.
“Let me first say that the “mystical” and “reality” are perfect opposites in my view.”
Which is why I find your statement self-contradictory. As follows:
“But in the end, reality will dictate which of those solutions work and which do not.”
This doesn’t mean that there isn’t more than one solution. Several solutions may work to a greater or lesser degree. To think that one must be optimal then the others is fatalistic.
“Why, you have your eyes, your touch, your smell, and, exactly as you state, you have learned to think rationally (or at least, you have the ability to do so); you have learned to identify that which your senses perceive.”
Can you read every book ever written? Talk to everyone? Feel the same thing as every single being on earth? Know everything that has happened through history? If you can then you’re on your way to omnipotence. If you can’t then you can only perceive your angle of reality. So while you can of course learn to use your senses better, you can never take in the whole of reality.
“Quite right, but that does not mean that there are also different realities in fact.”
I have never claimed such. My point is that perception is everything when it comes to how we look at the world and how we rationally come to conclusions.
More or less, but in order for the majority to rule, it first has to make law, which, as you point out, can be a slow and arduous process. Besides, a mere majority in most republics cannot alter the Constitution. Indeed, in the United States, the Constitution cannot be altered at all, only amended. And it is exactly herein that the basic rights of all men are guaranteed—as much as the powers of government are restrained.
All right. Let’s say people “think” they have a “right” to food. Since there is no “stonewall reality” that demands that food be produced, it will come to them—how? “Somehow.”
Let’s say people “think” they have a “right” to “happiness”. Since there is no “stonewall reality” that demands that one works to gain happiness, it will come to them—”somehow.”
That is the logical consequence of any morality that denies that existence exists and whichs holds that laws are arbitrary and rights are relative.
Of course! What I’m trying to say is that reality will always doom the efforts of those who try to solve problems irrationally—who try to solve problems by denying reality.
For example: You might be able to fuel a car by petrol or hydrogen or alcohol, but no matter how hard you try, a combustion engine will not run on vanilla. If anyone claims otherwise, reality will prove him wrong.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that reality as such cannot be perceived. You don’t have to read the book to see it and know that it’s real. You needn’t gain omnipotence to gain knowledge.
And I agree. Perhaps I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. We all perceive reality in our own way, but I think that there is but one reality. We all look at it differently and none of us can grasp it in full, but that is not to say that the unseen does not exist; that colors do not exist because a colorblind person cannot see them; that sound does not exist because a deaf person cannot hear them.
“And it is exactly herein that the basic rights of all men are guaranteed—as much as the powers of government are restrained. ”
The law is only the law as long as people believe it to be the law. It can still be changed, especially if people think it to be antiquated, as can happen when a constitution is not applicable for change. For an instance look at the (in)famous second amendment, which is meeting strong resistance, precisely because many feels that the rights guaranteed therein belong to a different century. Whether they are correct or not is an entirely different debate but it can serve as an example that the law can and will be changed if strong enough support can be mustered.
“That is the logical consequence of any morality that denies that existence exists and whichs holds that laws are arbitrary and rights are relative.”
No, that is what happens when one is overly literal. Of course you cannot give people something that do not exists. Yet in a modern society, the resources to provide these rights do exist. International law has support for this in form of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which holds that everyone has the right to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. It also comes with a clause stating that if the resources do not exist then states cannot be held responsible for not following it. In short it acknowledges reality and also acknowledges that resources exist.
“Of course! What I’m trying to say is that reality will always doom the efforts of those who try to solve problems irrationally—who try to solve problems by denying reality.”
When did I claim that you should deny reality? I have simply argued for a less extremist point of view where all rationality doesn’t lead to one end, which is what you are arguing for. I would say that thyat is true irrationality.
“Sure, but that doesn’t mean that reality as such cannot be perceived. You don’t have to read the book to see it and know that it’s real. You needn’t gain omnipotence to gain knowledge.”
You’re being way too literal again. What I am stating is that we each hold different perspectives and as such there cannot be any “reality given” morality.
“We all look at it differently and none of us can grasp it in full, but that is not to say that the unseen does not exist; that colors do not exist because a colorblind person cannot see them; that sound does not exist because a deaf person cannot hear them.”
And I agree. The point is that in a debate centered on the facts of reality, what we don’t know becomes irrelevant.
There is a fundamental difference of understanding between the two of us. You are claiming that the law is a relative; I want objective law.
You sure you don’t mean “logical” and “consistent”?
I’m not saying that they don’t exist. They do exist. But they don’t exist out of thin air. They have to be produced by men. Which means, as I see it, that they properly belong to the men who produce them. If you want to extract them in part from those men, you must give me another reason than “need”.
I’m afraid we misunderstood eachother on this point. I never wanted to give the impression that I believe that rational thought always leads to one and the same answer or solution. All I’m saying is that there’s only one reality, i.e.: that reality is not a relative.
Again, reality is not a relative. How can you reasonably base a just morality on “perception”?
“You are claiming that the law is a relative; I want objective law. ”
And I claim that there is no such thing as objective law. Human beings are not computers, we ultimately base our decisions on what feels right. This does not make us irrational; but rationality is a tool, not a philosophy. Only a being completely devoid of emotions can be truly rational.
“f you want to extract them in part from those men, you must give me another reason than “need”.”
Well, now I know that you’re not going to buy this next part at all but how about giving back to society. Individuals are dependent on the smooth running of the surrounding society. A society where basic needs such as healthcare are not taken care of despite the existence of the possibility is unstable. Hence it is a threat to the individual. Since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts what’s wrong with some of the parts contributing the oil to ensure smooth running?
“All I’m saying is that there’s only one reality, i.e.: that reality is not a relative. ”
Reality is not relative. But our perception of reality is and since morals are fundamentally based not on rationality but on emotion, out perceptions are more important then reality.
“Again, reality is not a relative. How can you reasonably base a just morality on “perception”?”
What is just? Nick, what you don’t seem to be willing to grasp here is one of the fundamental laws of history; things change. Everything changes, always. There cannot be a perfect natural moral code. Morality grows out of a shared consensus based on everyone’s perception. This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as morality. But it changes and grows and trying to put one set down on paper is fundamentally futile.
I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree there.
Let me state again that there’s nothing necessary wrong with it. It’s forcing people to do so that’s immoral, IMO.
There’s another disagreement between us that’s probably fundamental. I wouldn’t be able to consider a morality based on “emotion” to be a morality at all! Such is a morality of the whim, which, if brought into law, would be arbitrary and chaotic.
That’s not true. The laws of nature won’t ever change: nothing will change about gravity, or the fact that a plant needs water to survive. Nothing will ever change the fact that in order to survive, man needs to breath and eat. A proper morality, a Morality of Life, accepts this reality and does not try to evade or deny it.
“Such is a morality of the whim, which, if brought into law, would be arbitrary and chaotic. ”
Or dynamic, adaptable and progressive. It’s all in the wording.
Fact is that whether you like it or not, morals change. Once slavery was a perfectly normal aspect of society; today it is wretched and immoral. Homosexuality was abhorred but now it is largely accepted, in he western world at least. Why should this historical dynamic change because some people cannot move beyond the thought of an all encompassing force?
“That’s not true. The laws of nature won’t ever change: nothing will change about gravity, or the fact that a plant needs water to survive. Nothing will ever change the fact that in order to survive, man needs to breath and eat”
We’re discussing history here, not biology. Humankind changes, evolves, devolves. Our basic biology may remain the same (though various scientist are working to change that) but our reality is constantly in flux. Nations, religions, philosophies rise and fall. The world is dynamic, not static and by attempting to force into a narrow ‘objective’ framework you are diminishing the very processes you claim to celebrate.
And anyway, if a proper morality is based in the need to eat, would it not be immoral to deprive some people of this to safeguard the luxury of others?
Isn’t morality an abstract created by man? without man it does not exist therefore it’s subjective by man’s presece as a social animal.Hein?
That doesn’t change the fact that a law based on “emotion”, or a law acknowledged as “relative” leaves people in constant uncertainty of what is legal and what is not; it leaves them at the mercy of the whim of any law enforcement officer and bureaucrat that they might happen to stumble upon. Such is not a society in which people could thrive and such is most certainly not a society in which capitalism could prosper.
True. Would you say that slavery and the persecution of homosexuals was a good thing? Of course not. We can both agree those things are horrible. Note what made them possible: denying people their right to life (slavery) and their right to liberty (homosexuality).
The world is dynamic only because of what people do. Nature is, pretty much, predictable. So is, to a certain degree, human nature. A proper morality acknowledges the undeniable: a proper morality acknowledges reality.
I didn’t state that a proper morality is based “in the need to eat”. I used that as an example to back up what I wrote above: that a proper morality is one based in reality.
As much as man cannot exist with a morality. Without morality, man can be no more than a savage. Morality may be “subjective” in the sense that man has to discover it, but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary.
“Such is not a society in which people could thrive and such is most certainly not a society in which capitalism could prosper.”
Such is the society we currently live in. Yet, apart from hijinks like the latest bust, capitalism seems to be coming along rather well. I’m starting to wonder whether you aren’t the one wanting to impose your viewpoint on reality, rather than the other way around.
“A proper morality acknowledges the undeniable: a proper morality acknowledges reality.”
And human reality is dynamic hence claiming the existence of a singular moral code is irrational. Voila!
“Note what made them possible: denying people their right to life (slavery) and their right to liberty (homosexuality). ”
No what made them possible was that people believed it to be just and proper and thus it was. That their “rights” were denied were the effect, not the cause. If you or me had been born back then we wouldn’t have though it strange or immoral because that was reality and as such if they would build an objective morality they would not be against slavery. What is real for human beings are not based on natural laws; it’s based on social factors.
“I used that as an example to back up what I wrote above: that a proper morality is one based in reality.”
“As much as man cannot exist with a morality.”
Yes we can. No matter our technology we are still more or less the same communal apes that waked out of the great rift valley thousands of years ago. Modern civilization is constructed around several coexisting moral codes; yet these aren’t permanent and cannot be, unless you want to freeze human development.
Human beings are human beings. The whole ‘savages’ or ‘a man without freedom is not man’ spiel is not objective reasoning; they’re the creation of various social factors that have built us a mental picture of what a ‘man’ is. Many of the go back to the slave owning Romans.
Capitalism greatest virtue is the fact that it’s dynamic. It is, in most cases anyway, progressive. Its anarchic to a certain degree. It allows free thought and new ideas. Yet you want to force it into your own narrow ‘objective’ mold. To me that sounds more dangerous than any communistic idea.
Why, I certainly hope not!
I’m not sure what you mean specifically with “human reality”. If you mean the conditions under which we live, the world we built ourselves, the why of course, it’s dynamic. But human nature is not. Reality is not.
Yes, but I meant to refer to the legal framework by which such horrors were made possible. Do you want to live in a society where what people “believe” to be just, is? Surely that can’t be the basis of any morality, let alone the law!
This I suppose, applies to many people indeed. They let social factors shape their lives more than logical and nature and reality.
Really? Would “communal apes” have been able to built a combustion engine? Would “communal apes” have been able to built airplanes, space shuttles, and nuclear power plants? Would “communal apes” have been able to discover germs and atoms and black holes? Could a “communal ape” have written a literary master piece or composed a symphony? No, of course not! It is progress that defines man. And for that, he needs a morality. You cannot sow any seed unless you learn the laws of nature. You cannot expect a man to farm unless you grant him the right to own his land and whatever it produces. And you take it from there, all the way to cars and skyscrapers and nuclear fission.
No! What I want it exactly for it to be free and dynamic! It is talk of “relative”, arbitrary law, “the public good”, “social circumstances” and the supposed non-existence of objective reality, that so restricts freedom, free enterprise and the potential of capitalism.
All I demand is three rights for all people: life, liberty and property. And all I want from any government is that it protects those rights. That’s (pretty much) it. How can that be a narrow and restrictive view?
As for communism, what I propose is the perfect opposite.
“Do you want to live in a society where what people “believe” to be just, is? Surely that can’t be the basis of any morality, let alone the law! ”
That IS the society we live in. That’s my entire point. You are going on and on about reality and being objective and yet you flat out ignore the reality we live, have lived in and probably (notice the use of that word) always will live in.
“Yes, but I meant to refer to the legal framework by which such horrors were made possible.”
And I was referring to the social factors which created those legal frameworks in the first place.
“This I suppose applies to many people indeed. They let social factors shape their lives more than logical and nature and reality.”
My, arrogant are we? Everyone’s action is dictated by social factors. Logic is a tool we use in social relations, among other areas. This is human nature. If you think yourself above this then you’re badly out of touch with reality.
“It is progress that defines man. And for that, he needs a morality. ”
I have never denied the existence of morality. What I am trying to show you is that morality progresses (if you want to use that term) right alongside with technology and all the other factors. You cannot create one ‘objective’ reality without forcing progress to a halt.
“You cannot expect a man to farm unless you grant him the right to own his land and whatever it produces.”
This is just flat-out untrue. If you don’t give him choice he will. It might not be the best system and its certainly not one I want to live in but history has proven that it is possible.
“How can that be a narrow and restrictive view? ”
Because you fail to account what other possibilities that exist to better people’s lives. Because you fail to understand the difference between stealing someone’s livelihood and taxing luxuries. Because you fail to understand that rights are fundamentally derived from needs and how your ideology thus threatens the right to life. Because you overestimate the individual and ignore society. Because you fail to understand the true nature of dynamic progress.
But most of all because you cannot fathom a morality outside your own so called objectivity. Because you claim to celebrate change and progress and yet you are deadly afraid of it, to the point where you refuse to even acknowledge its existence.
That’s just not true. A murderer might believe that what he did was just, but that doesn’t make it so. A thief might say that what he did was just, but that doesn’t make it so. A majority of the people in a given country might say that abortion is an abomination but that doesn’t mean it is.
I don’t let “social factors” dictate my actions exclusively, nor primarily. Nor do I believe that doing so would make me more happy. In fact, I am convinced that it won’t.
See, I think that one such objective morality created material progress in the first place, and that by gradually distancing ourselves from it is why things are coming to a halt.
Quite true—slavery. Then, indeed, you have to force people at the point of a gun to work. Many will, under such circumstances. But no man will farm voluntarily if he knows in advance that whatever he produces won’t be his.
Which is—that it’s legalized?
Are such rights moral then? People need so many things. The only thing I can utter in response is: At whose expense?
What is society—other than a number of individuals? Society as such does not exist. “Society” has not one voice, other than the voice of any power-hungry bureaucrat who stands up to speak on behalf of “the people”. “Society” has no rights, other than the rights of the individuals of which it is composed. “Society” is not some super-organism, superior to man. Whenever something is justified “in the interest of society”, you can bet that it’s not in the interest of individual, free and responsible men.
Which is—other than productive, intelligent individuals, living and working in freedom?
I suppose we must have a contradictionary understanding of the word “progress” for just one comment ago, I claimed that progress defines man.
“Isn’t morality an abstract created by man? without man it does not exist therefore it’s subjective by man’s presence as a social animal. Hein?”
What if I reword this sentence:
Isn’t food an abstract created by man? without man it does not exist therefore it’s subjective by man’s presence as a social animal. Hein?
It’s pretty much the same principle for all the requirements of life, oxygen, food, morality etc. I think even a savage has some degree of morality, enough to keep him alive at least.
“Or dynamic, adaptable and progressive. It’s all in the wording.”
Until we adapt ourselves into oblivion. Just because things can change doesn’t mean that all change is necessarily good.
“Fact is that whether you like it or not, morals change.”
What we believe to be moral may change but what actually is moral does not change. A good example is slavery. It has always been immoral even though most people of ancient times did not believe this.
“Because you fail to understand the difference between stealing someone’s livelihood and taxing luxuries.”
Exactly what is this difference? In either case what is being taken is not so much money or resources but the time the person spent working to earn it.
“The only thing I can utter in response is: At whose expense?”
Unfortunately, it seems the answer is always, “at my expense”. If rights are fundamentally derived from needs then the only answer is that other people have to be forced to provide them. Then what about their needs?
Exactly. Therein lies the inconsistency: it is right for others to demand that you sacrifice for their needs, but it’s wrong to demand that others sacrifice for yours.
“That’s just not true. A murderer might believe that what he did was just, but that doesn’t make it so. A thief might say that what he did was just, but that doesn’t make it so. A majority of the people in a given country might say that abortion is an abomination but that doesn’t mean it is.”
Because the majority (or at least the majority with the resources of expressing their views that is mainly westerners) disagrees with them. Thus it’s not moral. Yet a century ago abortion was highly immoral, as was premarital sex and other things we find highly normal today.
“See, I think that one such objective morality created material progress in the first place, and that by gradually distancing ourselves from it is why things are coming to a halt.”
Since when are things coming to a halt? Technological advancement is speeding up, has been for several centuries. And when that process began this objective morality you speak of didn’t exist and wouldn’t occur to anyone.
“But no man will farm voluntarily if he knows in advance that whatever he produces won’t be his. ”
If he knows he gets protection out of it, though I can suppose you can argue that that is a fair trade. Or if he’s indoctrinated enough. But my point was that the modern definition of individual freedom isn’t necessary for progress. It helps and it certainly speeds up the process; but the process would never have begun if not those slaveowners had participated in it.
“The only thing I can utter in response is: At whose expense?”
To which I answer: those who can afford without it being a threat to their livelihoods and basic rights.
“What is society—other than a number of individuals? Society as such does not exist.”
These days it’s typically called a nationstate. But of course society is made up of individuals. It’s a constant series of meetings, discussions and concentration of resources. It’s an arena where men compete to prove their worth. And without it the individual would be nothing, a mere idiot to use the original meaning of the word. Of course the term ‘good for society’ has been used by all manner of despots through the ages. This doesn’t negate the fact that sometimes what’s good for the individual is what’s good for society, because if society is nonfunctional then men are alone, isolated and done for.
“Which is—other than productive, intelligent individuals, living and working in freedom?”
Progress is a dynamic group wide process where groups of people pool their resources to create greater things, where individuals are allowed to experiment and where change can work on all levels. ‘productive, intelligent individuals, living and working in freedom’ is not progress, it’s the result of progress. You’re confusing effects with causes.
“What we believe to be moral may change but what actually is moral does not change. A good example is slavery. It has always been immoral even though most people of ancient times did not believe this.”
And you base this upon what exactly?
“In either case what is being taken is not so much money or resources but the time the person spent working to earn it.”
Resources is exactly what is being taken. Two people can work the exact same number of hours and yet earn staggeringly different wages. This by itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is when one person thinks that it is more important for him to own a 52 inch widescreen instead of owning a 42 inch while the other poor bugger gets his healthcare. It’s a nonproductive form of selfishness.
So whatever the majority of a given group of people finds is what is moral?
I was referring to the whole recession-thing. ;)
Technological advencement is speeding up, yes. Especially in communication technology. Which happens to be the least regulated sector of industry.
At the time of the Industrial Revolution, probably many didn’t realize what morality made the process possible, but we have learnt to identify it in hindsight: freedom of production, freedom of enterprise, freedom of trade.
How’s that?
By what right—other than the “need” of others?
Or: is good for everyone—why, yes, absolutely. As far as I’m concerned though, society in itself cannot be pivotal to any morality. Or, put another way: society cannot be an end in itself.
As I see it, that is the cause of progress. Yes, “groups of people pool[ing] their resources to create greater things” helps, but there is no such thing is a collective thought or a collective idea. Progress is the product of man’s mind; an individual’s mind, for there is no such thing is a collective mind.
But is that enough reason to force the television-buyer to give up part of his money for the sake of the poor bugger? And who is to make that choice—if not the owner of that money?