Are our Moral Standards in Society Degrading?

[Magpai]

Given that healthcare is a public issue and a human right, it isn't comparable.

Now you're just begging the question. Very few of my version of "human rights" are rights you can obtain by force at someone else's expense.

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 11:23 PM ----------

I'm going to Buffalo Wild Wings so I don't have time to get into a debate, but here's my viewpoint on the issue.

Hmm, I thought we were in agreement. I'm never too busy for a Learn Liberty video though :-D

[Elegiac]

Now you're just begging the question. Very few of my version of "human rights" are rights you can obtain by force at someone else's expense.

Which, philosophically speaking, is untrue. People give up absolute freedom for liberty as a condition of living in a society; liberty, of course, being freedom within certain bounds. Many if not all basic human rights come at the expense of others' 'freedom'.

[Abysal]

In some ways. In other ways, no.

There was a time when women were basically considered property of their husbands.
There was a time when slavery was considered perfectly acceptable.
There was a time when beating your kids because they made a mistake was considered a moral obligation.

So what you could say is that the definition of morality is an ever changing thing. Those who cling to an old definition of morality, view any change as "moral standards in society degrading."

[lzsg]

It's the role of the government to enforce equality before the law. A society that aims for equality before freedom will end up with neither. A society that aims for freedom and equality before the law will reach a state of equality far above that of a society that strives for perceived equality of opportunity first. Neither will ever result in full equality. Even a totalitarian regime will not result in equality. Of course, that requires governments to actually enforce contracts and laws fairly, and in a generally applicable manner that doesn't result in disparate impacts.

That's my opinion at least.

Right, that's why people in all egalitarian societies are less free and less equal than those in societies not overly concerned with equality.

[Catta]

Now you're just begging the question. Very few of my version of "human rights" are rights you can obtain by force at someone else's expense.

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 11:23 PM ----------



Hmm, I thought we were in agreement. I'm never too busy for a Learn Liberty video though :-D

In my country the medical oath all doctors are required to take says we have a duty to help our fellow man. So as long we have doctors we will have healthcare - or they wouldn't be worthy to be called doctors.

[Seme]

You listed a bunch of programs implemented by government force as evidence against moral decline

That wasn't what I was implying, but as you seem so intent with it, sure why not. What exactly do you think a government is? In a democratic state, we the people agree to live by a certain set of rules and govern ourselves, we want common amenities put in place to help us out in our daily lives such as roads, police, etc. but this costs money which is why we pay taxes. All of this requires some form of management so we elect people to represent us and run our society which we call the government.

Therefore government is a reflection of the people, as morality rises we look to implement systems and laws to help those who can't always help themselves, for example universal health care. Most of the developed world has realized that a society should be judged on how it takes care of the weakest. We all believe in equal opportunity, but at the same time we also want a good safety net for those not so well off.

For example, I as a taxpayer and a voter don't want to live in a society with equal distribution of wealth handed out by the government as that would essentially be communism. I also don't want to live in a Darwinian society where everyone is out for themselves and a survival of the fittest(richest?). I am happy living in a society with good social mobility, plenty of opportunity and a solid safety net to make sure the standard of living never drops below a certain level.

[Elegiac]

Right, that's why people in all egalitarian societies are less free and less equal than those in societies not overly concerned with equality.

That is because 'egalitarian societies' focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Given that outcomes are different because humans naturally differ in virtue and ability (to use Stoic terminology), enforcing it is thus contrary to human nature and fails because of it.

[Magpai]

Which, philosophically speaking, is untrue. People give up absolute freedom for liberty as a condition of living in a society; liberty, of course, being freedom within certain bounds. Many if not all basic human rights come at the expense of others' 'freedom'.

Demanding that citizens up the freedom to kill and rape indiscriminately in order to live in a society that forbids such things is hardly comparable to demanding from the populace several middle class salaries' worth of income every year to extend Grandma Greta's life, or pay for the first of several surgeries that will leave someone crippled and helpless instead of dead.

Even if you are of the opinion that it's the government's foolish and futile moral duty to prevent death, that money is much better spent on cheaper preventable deaths. To call healthcare a "basic human right" is to deny that budget to other programs, unless of course you want ALL those programs fully funded without question, which is just unrealistic. It might make sense in a fantasy world where everything is free and all doctors and patients are honest, but in reality government guarantee of "healthcare rights" is just a very expensive version of a government food program. My conclusion from this is that people who spout about healthcare being a right that the government can pay for with your neighbors' money at gunpoint is that if anyone who said that really cared about others, they'd be wanting that money allocated to other programs. But they don't because they know that they won't benefit from those programs. Everyone who says this is just looking out for their own healthcare and nothing more. Me, me, me and I don't care who has to pay for it.

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 11:35 PM ----------

In my country the medical oath all doctors are required to take says we have a duty to help our fellow man. So as long we have doctors we will have healthcare - or they wouldn't be worthy to be called doctors.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Catta]

Everyone who says this is just looking out for their own healthcare and nothing more. Me, me, me and I don't care who has to pay for it.

Or maybe they just like a society where friends and loved ones do not die because they cant afford treatment.

[Speaknoevil]

They're getting better.

[Magpai]

That is because 'egalitarian societies' focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Given that outcomes are different because humans naturally differ in virtue and ability (to use Stoic terminology), enforcing it is thus contrary to human nature and fails because of it.

Minimum wage laws and redistribution of wealth via healthcare programs (and that's ALL it is, government doesn't make those costs disappear) are outcome based, not equal opportunity.

[Catta]

What does this have to do with anything?

It means that there is a fundamental difference in mentality which you fail in being able to consider.

[leggomydairy]

Why do I suspect that you mean "Conservative Christian Values" when you say "Traditional Values".

I was thinking the same thing.
We are not degrading our morals. The idea is ludicrous.
First off, it's 2013. We have internet, social media, all that. Communication on a worldly scale is so common that we hear about issues all around the world more than we ever could before. It makes it seem like more bad stuff happens, but if you look at it in perspective, you just hear about it more.
Secondly, this depends on where you live and may not be true for you, but I know where I live, people are becoming more open to accepting others who are different and turn away from religion and "traditional values" in favor of an open mind. When my mom was growing up in the same town I live in now, her brother would be beaten not only by men from school but by police because he was gay. I didn't go through that.
Thirdly, one thing Americans really need to understand is that SEX IS NOT BAD. Your dogs do it. Zebras do it. All animals do it. Some even do it as a way of payment. (I forget the name of the animal but it's a type of monkey) We get pleasure out of it. Some people get pleasure out of reading. Why is it bad for someone to have sex? being provocative is not bad because sexy is not bad. Sex is natural for me, you, your parents, and your cat.
Fourth and lastly, depending on how traditional your values are, they are much more degrading than our modern values. Women ARE equal to men. Gays and lesbians ARE NOT any different from straights. Whites ARE NOT any better than any other race. Christians ARE NOT better than followers of other religions.

tl;dr: it's 2013, stuff changes, and our morals are not degrading.

[Magpai]

Or maybe they just like a society where friends and loved ones do not die because they cant afford treatment.

I don't see the difference. "I want myself/my loved one to live and I'm willing to have the government force someone else to pay for their treatment on my behalf". Even if they were okay with government acting in this manner, if it was really about the principle they'd want that money used to feed the many hungry children a surgery's cost can feed, not to be used to save their relative. It's 100% selfish, the principle is just a smokescreen.

[Elegiac]

Minimum wage laws and redistribution of wealth via healthcare programs (and that's ALL it is, government doesn't make those costs disappear) are outcome based, not equal opportunity.

They are social safetynets, not wealth redistribution in the exact sense of that term. Which are necessary in a civilized society.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Not at all. The only things I consider to be moral standards are things that touch upon basic human rights. Pretty much everything else is just people bitching about things that they don't like for one reason or another.

[Magpai]

It means that there is a fundamental difference in mentality which you fail in being able to consider.

if you had any relevant point to what I said that you quoted, you'd explain it to me rather than just lob pitiful insults about my inability to understand.

[Elegiac]

I don't see the difference. "I want myself/my loved one to live and I'm willing to have the government force someone else to pay for their treatment on my behalf". Even if they were okay with government acting in this manner, if it was really about the principle they'd want that money used to feed the many hungry children a surgery's cost can feed, not to be used to save their relative. It's 100% selfish, the principle is just a smokescreen.

Why can't the government do both? Wait, that's right...it's the anti-welfare people wanting more money to be spent on 'Defense'.

[Magpai]

They are social safetynets, not wealth redistribution in the exact sense of that term. Which are necessary in a civilized society.

Nonsense. One person's "safety net" can cost many families' salaries. To enforce that kind of sacrifice for strangers is well beyond the government's moral duty.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Nonsense. One person's "safety net" can cost many families' salaries. To enforce that kind of sacrifice for strangers is well beyond the government's moral duty.

Provide real evidence that these things are doing more harm than good.