Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

TLD

Regulars
  • Posts

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TLD

  1. (It appears that my response did not get posted; this may come up twice) No method, just the concept of proof and that knowledge is contextual. Given the lack of any evidence that some P are not Q, then one can say with certainty (conclusive evidence) that all P are Q. . I was answering the hypothetical question. Ex. would be if one thought there might be a P that is not Q that he might see in the future, and he did not believe he could conclude all P are Q. That was an explanation, not a syllogism.
  2. It doesn't! But philosophically, one does not need to see all Ps to conclude that all P are Q. If all the Ps seen are Q, then the evidence is conclusive. Given contextual knowledge, we cannot base any conclusion on the potential of a conflict in the future.
  3. False alternative, indeed. The only person responsible for the child is the parent. A Parent should either terminate a fetus knowing inevitable suffering or minimize the suffering post-birth with the aid of the medical profession. In either case, the parent should not have sacrificed. Anyone else without interest in that child can help the latter out of charity or do nothing. In either case, there is no sacrifice. Where is the moral issue here?
  4. I did not see your 3rd-world context. Where Govt.s do not respect individual rights, the individuals are victims with nothing to do but fight against the Govt. But regardless of where a child lives, he does not have a right to health care. You are dealing with a subjective issue and can't look to philosophy for the answer. As has been discussed, charity is the best answer in such cases; and the U.S. has certainly been a charitable country to much of the world. (No, our Govt. does not have a right to use our tax dollars to meet such needs in foreign countries.) Those who are concerned as you can certainly join in the giving. Of course, in such countries, one cannot even guarantee that $$ reach the intended persons. Those who have services of value to those persons can certainly spend time in those countries....
  5. TLD

    College Logic

    The "Facts" are not facts, thus no truth value. Unless logic class logic has changed immensely since I was in school.
  6. Better to start with the assumption that there is no loophole and there are no gray areas. Principles can address all issues without "gray." Philosophy does not care what he does as long as it is moral and does not violate anyone's rights. And no one has a right to his drug. Much of the discussion here goes beyond philosophical and purely objective questions. I use this example to note that it is in the best interest of the owner to do whatever he deems best for himself in the long-run. But what he does is not necessarily dictated by morality. You are calling it "gray" because it is not clear how people should act in particular situations. But you seem to be falsely assuming that there should only be 1 right answer to any given situation. Where an issue is subjective - not objective, "gray" has no meaning. Also, there is no blind trust in individuals. And when someone does the "wrong" thing, then we have a court system to determine how to punish him. But a rational/moral person will not turn bad due to increased power.
  7. What I have not seen stated here is that The “common good” (= “public interest”) is a meaningless moral concept: there is no such entity as “the public.” Public or Society is only a collection of individual men. How can the needs of (and what is good for) individuals be grouped together without sacrificing some for others? This concept is used to derail morality and to irrationally suggest that there is something superior to the individual good of the individuals within the collective. But once one or more persons is sacrificed for the sake of the majority, all rights have been abrogated.
  8. Upholding rational self-interest means to act on the values required for human survival, not the values produced by desires, emotions, feelings and whims. It means upholding the principle of individual rights: neither sacrificing oneself for others nor others to oneself. You cannot remove “rational” without removing the distinction between rational people and dictators.
  9. "Society" is not sacrificed, individuals are. To solve such a problem, you can't simply pick the least harmful tax. A truly free market always has a solution. You don't need to assume that a child will have to suffer if individuals, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors are free to negotiate to fill the need to take care of him/her. If the need and willingness to pay for services is not great enough, then we turn to charitable organizations for support. No sacrifice is required. Even in our current state, it has been stated in this forum that insurance is available to most to solve this problem. You are thus taking the worst case scenario and extrapolating. You are assuming a child is "allowed" to suffer; allowed by whom? My selfishness is not weighed against such suffering. Those closest to such a child have the greatest responsibility (e.g. parents), need and desire to help the child in some manner. If they don't, do they have a right to turn to us and demand assistance? Govt.'s role is to defend individual rights. Unless you define health care as a right, then it is wrong to redistribute the wealth to cover everyone's health care. Turning to Govt. for solutions is the easy way of avoiding responsibility for one's self and family.
  10. Note also that values are those things one acts to gain/keep; virtues relate to the actions taken to gain/keep them. Thus another reason why they cannot be combined.
  11. Every person - child or adult - has the same rights; but a right to life is a right to action to pursue life, not a right to demand something from others. A parent has the responsibility for protecting the life of his/her children; that means here the responsibility to buy insurance for the children. Where the parent truly cannot afford insurance, charity can subsidize it. One certainly should not ask for Govt. support at the expense of others. And philosophical answers to such questions should not rest on "emergency" examples. That is simply a given. That is what AR was all about.
  12. AR believed in man's potential as a rational being; that is not being optimistic. She was a benevolent person who saw the good in people; you could see that when talking with her. She was certainly not unaware of trends in a direction opposite Objectivism. But she was more concerned with helping each individual live his life to the fullest than with those who could impede one's ability to do so. (Note that her focus was never on marketing her philosophy for maximum exposure; that was left to others.) Look at the current political situation, think about what best can be done, and participate in activities that work toward that end. AR was fully aware of the "unproductive masses"..., but she was more concerned with the productive persons who helped enable the unproductive. Don't become one of those.
  13. I hope you can see after all the responses that there are no "gray" areas with Objectivism. It is up to each individual to be trustworthy... virtuous. Objectivism gives the guidance - objective guidance.
  14. ______________ I take this as the essence of your post. I.e., you know HC is not a right but are concerned about the issue of affordability and coverage. Morally: not being a right, one should not be able to demand HC at the expense of anyone else. Thus, society has no duty.... Politically: Govt. should not likewise impose burdens on some to pay for others. Everyone should assume responsibility to retain health insurance for such protections. And covering a child from day 1 should prevent the problem you pose. In today's context: Many rational things can and should be done to lower HC costs. Then a very small percent of people would be unable to truly afford insurance. And charity would likely take care of most of them. Beyond that, and still in the interest of charity, Govt. subsidy to help ensure that those still unable to afford insurance are covered would at least keep hospital emergency rooms free for serious illnesses, lower hospital costs, and would eliminate the need for any further Govt. takeover of HC.
×
×
  • Create New...