I got my answer, you are both. Thanks for clarifying.
FYI
Merriam-Webster
altruism
unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
I got my answer, you are both. Thanks for clarifying.
FYI
Merriam-Webster
altruism
unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
the sayer of so wrote:
Wendell Gee wrote:You are either an above average troll or a below average intellect.
FYI: from the Oxford dictionary:
altruism: devotion to the welfare of others.
That definition is wrong. It is anti-conceptual; i.e. of contains no qualifiers to distinguish it from anything else.
You are just talking jibberish (sp?) now.
Actually, the Declaration of Independence specifies that healthcare is a "right" By stating that the pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights".. Without healthcare you may be impinging on ones right to life.
putting it out there wrote:
Here's the thing - a right is whatever we want it to be. There is no universal standard for rights. There are no rights in the animal world, and rights certainly did not evolve with humans.
At some point in our history humans decided we would invent the concept of rights. I think we've done a pretty good job. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Right to free speech. Right to not incriminate yourself.
So you are saying "there is no right to healthcare". Yes, you may be correct simply because there has not been a right to healthcare yet. But since we invented the concept of rights, we can change them any time we want.
Some people think healthcare SHOULD be a right. So the debate is not whether healthcare IS a right or not, it's whether it SHOULD BE. You seem to think no, and that's fine. But it's a wrong line of thinking to say that it shouldn't be a right simply because it is not currently one.
You've contradicted yourself. The statement that that "society" can change the concpet of rights any time "it" wants subsumes a universal standard of rights: the will of the majority. This is nothing more than an appeal to collectivism. You're saying that universal rights exist, but that they belong only to groups rather than to individuals. You had to accept the concept of a universal standard of rights and use it in order to make the statement that a universal standard of rights doesn't exist.
It is axiomatic (self-evidently true and inescapable) that human rights are as absolute and unchanging as the laws of physics. They have existed for as long as human beings have existed- whether the prevailing social/political systems recognized this is irrelevant. Since "society" as such does not exist and is only a social construct, and since individuals, not groups, are the fundamental unit of reality, rights can only belong to individuals. Groups have no ability to change the concept of rights and no right to override the rights of individuals.
Healthcare is not, never has been, and never will be a right anywhere on the face of the Earth, regardless of what is written into the law.
the sayer of so wrote:
It is axiomatic (self-evidently true and inescapable) that human rights are as absolute and unchanging as the laws of physics. They have existed for as long as human beings have existed- whether the prevailing social/political systems recognized this is irrelevant. Since "society" as such does not exist and is only a social construct, and since individuals, not groups, are the fundamental unit of reality, rights can only belong to individuals. Groups have no ability to change the concept of rights and no right to override the rights of individuals.
Healthcare is not, never has been, and never will be a right anywhere on the face of the Earth, regardless of what is written into the law.
Yeah, everything you said is self-evident and hasn't been the subject of endless philosophical debate through the centuries.
Right.
scottdye wrote:
Actually, the Declaration of Independence specifies that healthcare is a "right" By stating that the pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights".. Without healthcare you may be impinging on ones right to life.
1. Rights are not established by what is written in treatises.
2. Even if they were, the Declaration of Independence is not legal code; it is only a historical document.
3. Even if the Declaration of Indepndence was legal code, it only affirms the right to life - not the means to sustain life.
So you basically achieved a perfect inversion of logic there.
the sayer of so wrote:1. Rights are not established by what is written in treatises.
2. Even if they were, the Declaration of Independence is not legal code; it is only a historical document.
3. Even if the Declaration of Indepndence was legal code, it only affirms the right to life - not the means to sustain life.
So you basically achieved a perfect inversion of logic there.
Tell me, what are rights established by?
Right, Right, Right. However, it clearly lays out the foundation on which this country was established. I am sure the founding fathers had much more compassion for their fellow man than you. Whether it be a "right" or our responsibility as a society to help provide healthcare for those who do not have it, and need it, should not be a matter of debate. Simply by being the richest country on the face of the planet and being founded on "Christian" principles tells me that we all have a responsibility to our fellow man. If you think the saving a "few" dollars of tax money is worth a single life, I feel very sorry for you, but you are entitled to that opinion, I doesn't don't respect it.
correction "just don't have to respect it."
if you are dumb enough to believe in religion then you are far beyond hope
If a man is alone in the woods, and is mauled by a bear, and dies because he doesn't have access to medical attention, has his right to life been violated?
No one said I necessarily believe in religion. What I refered to was "Christian principles". When you get down to criticizing an individual for what they do or do not believe in, you have shown you have no better argrument and your true colors are shown. Sit back and reflect on how you really want to be treated and how you should treat people around you. Constructive debate is meaningful and productive. Ridicule of belief systems is petty and unbecoming of anyone trying to express a meaningful opinion.
I don't understand your fixation with "rights" except as a diversion from any meaningful discussion of what health care ought to look like. There are many things are written into law that don't readily trace back to any simple definition of "human rights". There are in fact items in law which clearly favor the greater good of the society over (the rights of?) the individual. So even if we were to concede your point, it is irrelevant.
I guess the thing I'm trying to stress is that our rights are something that we are born with, something that is ours that doesn't cost anyone else anything. Our rights are the rights to not have things done to us by other people. They are rights to say and do and think certain things without recrimination, as long as we don't hurt others.
The right to health-care is a whole new concept within that paradigm; you are now talking about a right to a service or good, which has to be taken from or provided by someone else. What was once a private concept is now being expanded to the public domain. While I understand the argument in favor of this expansion, people NEED to understand that this is a MASSIVE shift in the concept of what rights are, and this kind of shift in thinking does not come about easily, nor should it.
OK, maybe it's not a question of rights but just a question of whether or not the country will be better if access to to affordable healthcare is greatly extended.
Why phrase it that way? Was someone clamoring for their rights?
I have never seen so many people on LR agree on ANYthing EVER. Perhaps the stupidity and arrogance of "the sayer of so" will be the uniting force that brings everyone on LR together in peace and perfect harmony. Maybe there really was a point to his madness!
So tell me OP, was it Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead? Be honest now.
To the others, if you accept the Western view of rights, he's definitely correct. The "right to life" doesn't mean right to healthcare since this violates right #3: the right to property. You can't have a right that violates other peoples' rights. This is of course all predicated on you believing in the Lockean view on human rights.
Of course all of this is really a moot point, because we certainly don't have a right to highways or court systems, but those are probably beneficial to life in this country. OP, life is seldom as black and white as Ms. Rand would have you believe.
X-Runner wrote:
OK, maybe it's not a question of rights but just a question of whether or not the country will be better if access to to affordable healthcare is greatly extended.
Why phrase it that way? Was someone clamoring for their rights?
Value is not measured collectively so the country as a whole will not be better off with universal healthcare; some individuals may be better off (the sick, irresponsible, incompetent, lazy, etc.) but others will be worse off (those who aore nne of the above).
the sayer of so wrote:
You've contradicted yourself. The statement that that "society" can change the concpet of rights any time "it" wants subsumes a universal standard of rights: the will of the majority. This is nothing more than an appeal to collectivism. You're saying that universal rights exist, but that they belong only to groups rather than to individuals.
No I'm not saying that at all. Societies have existed in many different forms and the majority does not always rule.
the sayer of so wrote:You had to accept the concept of a universal standard of rights and use it in order to make the statement that a universal standard of rights doesn't exist.
Nope. You're really reaching.
the sayer of so wrote:
It is axiomatic (self-evidently true and inescapable) that human rights are as absolute and unchanging as the laws of physics.
Now I think you're joking.
the sayer of so wrote:Since "society" as such does not exist and is only a social construct, and since individuals, not groups, are the fundamental unit of reality, rights can only belong to individuals. Groups have no ability to change the concept of rights and no right to override the rights of individuals.
Groups can have whatever rights individuals and other groups want to give them.
the sayer of so wrote:
Healthcare is not, never has been, and never will be a right anywhere on the face of the Earth, regardless of what is written into the law.
Wrong again.
edumacator wrote:
So tell me OP, was it Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead? Be honest now.
To the others, if you accept the Western view of rights, he's definitely correct. The "right to life" doesn't mean right to healthcare since this violates right #3: the right to property. You can't have a right that violates other peoples' rights. This is of course all predicated on you believing in the Lockean view on human rights.
Of course all of this is really a moot point, because we certainly don't have a right to highways or court systems, but those are probably beneficial to life in this country. OP, life is seldom as black and white as Ms. Rand would have you believe.
I didn't just read Atlas Shrugged yesterday. I've believed as Rand does for as long as I can remember.