Free Riders

[sanjavalen]

To answer the original question, no. Since there would be no legal imperative to help others, they are not, strictly speaking, a "free rider," any more than there is a "free rider" problem today with, say, Goodwill or any other charity.

[Zip]

To answer the original question, no. Since there would be no legal imperative to help others, they are not, strictly speaking, a "free rider," any more than there is a "free rider" problem today with, say, Goodwill or any other charity.

This one is for me...

Your answer is absolutely spot on. No compulsion means no free rides. You can't cheat a system if the individuals involved are not forced to facilitate your fraud.

[JMeganSnow]

Zip, saying "all things being equal" is kind of pointless because things *aren't* equal and never will be, so you have to evaluate each situation as it comes along, comparing it to your particular situation and your value hierarchy. (I won't include that you, obviously, use your ethical system to do the evaluating, that should go without saying around here, at least.)

[Grames]

Not even to follow one's own rational self-interest? How can there be an "ought" without any imperatives? And how can there be ethics without any "oughts"?

In Objectivism, "ought" is nested inside one branch of a conditional. "IF you wish to live as a human being THEN you ought to ..."

I've seen the phrase "hypothetical imperative", but I think a better term would be "hypothetical normative."

[Zip]

Zip, saying "all things being equal" is kind of pointless because things *aren't* equal and never will be, so you have to evaluate each situation as it comes along, comparing it to your particular situation and your value hierarchy. (I won't include that you, obviously, use your ethical system to do the evaluating, that should go without saying around here, at least.)

Sorry Jenni, a little shorthand there...

Read - barring any emergency or physiological or psychological reason to render the action immoral by placing the normally higher value below the normally lower one...

[Zedic]

I don't know why ya'll are making things so complicated. Zip was spot on when he said, when the person is in a life or death situation, you're reducing him to nothing more than a cockroach when you refuse to save his life because you think he might not be able to pay the bills when he recovers. I wouldn't want to live in a society which is run like that. Why would I? I would feel like the doctors might not save my life in an emergency because they get their panties all tied in a knot over bills. I don't know about you all, I don't think you can put a cash value on human life. If any of you believe that's possible I'm curious to hear how much you estimate your life to be worth.

[Grames]

I don't know why ya'll are making things so complicated. Zip was spot on when he said, when the person is in a life or death situation, you're reducing him to nothing more than a cockroach when you refuse to save his life because you think he might not be able to pay the bills when he recovers. I wouldn't want to live in a society which is run like that. Why would I? I would feel like the doctors might not save my life in an emergency because they get their panties all tied in a knot over bills. I don't know about you all, I don't think you can put a cash value on human life. If any of you believe that's possible I'm curious to hear how much you estimate your life to be worth.

It is easy to be generous when you are rich, and to expect generosity when the individuals of the culture that you live in are rich. But that wealth is not to be taken for granted. It might seem paradoxical but when society is ordered such that people do routinely "get their panties in a bunch" about who pays the bills that society is better able to engage in real generosity.

I read an newspaper article several years ago that described the kindliness and generosity of individual africans, especially when it came to loyally taking care of their family members. But that very attitude enabled the nepotism, cronyism, incompetence and corruption of all the post-colonial governments in africa. It turns out that justice is not an optional virtue.

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't know why ya'll are making things so complicated. Zip was spot on when he said, when the person is in a life or death situation, you're reducing him to nothing more than a cockroach when you refuse to save his life because you think he might not be able to pay the bills when he recovers. I wouldn't want to live in a society which is run like that. Why would I? I would feel like the doctors might not save my life in an emergency because they get their panties all tied in a knot over bills. I don't know about you all, I don't think you can put a cash value on human life. If any of you believe that's possible I'm curious to hear how much you estimate your life to be worth.

You are not simplifying the issue, you are over simplifying it (leaving out important components): you are sidestepping the fact that in our society force is being used in the name of moral values which you are advocating for(and that use of force is pretty much necessary to fund this society you want to live in): as a result you are implicitely advocating the use of force too, not just saving lives.

In your response, if you care to respond, please defend the use of force, not the part about saving life(that's easy). Doctors can save lives even if they are not forced too: my question is why do you feel you have the right to enslave a doctor, by forcing him to work for you, free of charge? (that is the exact scenario you are describing: you want to live in a society that keeps doctors in a hospital by force, and makes them treat you free of charge when you are ill. )

To answer your question:

I am not putting a value on my life, but I am putting a value on the work a doctor does, and the services a hospital provides: an objective value, determined by market mechanisms, value which that doctor and his employer should be payed.

Why am I putting a value on that? Because that work and service are the result of effort and creativity on the medical professionals' part, it didn't fall from the sky.

As far as the value of human life is concerned, that is a philosophical question, please put it in specific philosophical context if you wish to discuss it or indicate that you are interested in discussing it in such a context, and I'll define it myself. Then I can explain to you why value is not a primary concept, why value, defined properly, is relative.(and tied to the individual who's value it is). After all that, if we agree on certain premises, we can go into discussing the value of a stranger's life to a rational individual: until then it is pointless to get into a shouting match about it, since our disagreement is likely more fundamental.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Zedic]

In your response, if you care to respond, please defend the use of force, not the part about saving life(that's easy).

But that's what I was talking about, the specific scenario where the patient is dying and needs immediate assistance or he'll die.

my question is why do you feel you have the right to enslave a doctor, by forcing him to work for you, free of charge? (that is the exact scenario you are describing: you want to live in a society that keeps doctors in a hospital by force, and makes them treat you free of charge when you are ill. )

Why did he become a doctor and take the Hippocratic oath knowing that if a person comes into the ER dying it's his job to save his life?

As far as the value of human life is concerned, that is a philosophical question, please put it in specific philosophical context if you wish to discuss it or indicate that you are interested in discussing it in such a context, and I'll define it myself.

I'll tell you in the context I'm discussing. I'll tell you the context again since you seem to have a short memory: The context of a life or death situation. A human life is more valuable than the dollar. It's immoral to leave a person to die because he's thought to not be worth enough money. Death is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you're squirting blood out the aorta, you're going to die in only a matter of minutes no matter how much money you have, unless someone is able to save your life.

[Maarten]

It is also impossible to survive without food. Does that mean that people should provide you with food if for whatever reason you are unable or unwilling to do so? What about a house? People in certain climates definitely need shelter. Do they have the right to have a house of some kind? What about other necessities that are further removed from directly dying but still affect your ability or desire to live? Should those be provided as well because at the end of the road you will die from not having it? I mean, you could also demand free access to the latest drugs if you are sick. After all, without them you will die. But where do you draw the line here? Once you say that under some conditions people MUST help you survive, you have really surrendered the principle and there's no good reason to say that in these situations help is needed and in these it is not.

I mean, every situation in life is a life/death situation, because every action you take affects your ability to live (or die). That is basically the essence of all the pseudo-rights liberals seem to come up with these days...

[Zip]

But that's what I was talking about, the specific scenario where the patient is dying and needs immediate assistance or he'll die.

Why did he become a doctor and take the Hippocratic oath knowing that if a person comes into the ER dying it's his job to save his life?

I'll tell you in the context I'm discussing. I'll tell you the context again since you seem to have a short memory: The context of a life or death situation. A human life is more valuable than the dollar. It's immoral to leave a person to die because he's thought to not be worth enough money. Death is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you're squirting blood out the aorta, you're going to die in only a matter of minutes no matter how much money you have, unless someone is able to save your life.

I think you have answered your own question. The kind of person that becomes a doctor is the kind of person who would most likely save a human life first (in keeping with his hierarchy of values) and sort out payment in cash or barter later.

BUT!!! There is no lawful commandment, no force that can be applied to MAKE him do it.

There would probably be some who would and as I said much earlier in the thread the Doctors would probably be able to purchase insurance against the rare cases where people would default on payment or not have medical insurance

Edited November 11, 2008 by Zip

[Zedic]

Okay then, I suppose there can't be an ER in an Objectivist society because of pseudo-rights liberals? That's pretty ridiculous. The ER's explicit purpose is to treat people who have medical emergencies. Out of rational self interest, every person here should understand the value in such a service. The question shouldn't be should we treat patients who are admitted to the ER, but how do we have such a place yet keep it true to Objectivist values?

[Maarten]

Well, hospitals would probably have such a department because it is important to their functioning. I imagine it would likely be funded either indirectly through other parts of the hospital or by donations. I do think that the current system is very much abused by people who have no desire or means to pay for the treatment. I do not think anyone has a right to medical treatment even in emergency situations, but it would probably still be available to them. I can just imagine that there would be some payment mechanism involved to offset at least some of the costs. After all, it is not at all fair to shift the bills to other people who do have the ability to pay for their medical expenses.

[Jake_Ellison]

But that's what I was talking about, the specific scenario where the patient is dying and needs immediate assistance or he'll die.

Why did he become a doctor and take the Hippocratic oath knowing that if a person comes into the ER dying it's his job to save his life?

The Hippocratic oath doesn't make him your slave, and if it did, you would still not have the right to make him your slave. However, a doctor taking this oath doesn't promise to be available to evryone, it is only an ethical guideline to how medicine should be practiced, if the doctor chooses to practice it, voluntarily. If you are still not convinced, here's the original translation from greek-it never mentions anything of the sort you are talking about, and for good reason: the greeks were quite rational:

I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

So that's that. Since he doesn't promise to be your slave, and even if he did, you couldn't keep him, the question remains: what gives you the right to use force against him, or anyone for that matter?

I'll tell you in the context I'm discussing. I'll tell you the context again since you seem to have a short memory: The context of a life or death situation. A human life is more valuable than the dollar. It's immoral to leave a person to die because he's thought to not be worth enough money. Death is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter how much money you have, if you're squirting blood out the aorta, you're going to die in only a matter of minutes no matter how much money you have, unless someone is able to save your life.

You have still not defined the concept of value, nor have you described an ethical system according to which what you say is immoral is immoral, and you also haven't mentioned how you arrived at such an ethical system. Until yuo do that, I can't discuss with you the value of someone's life, since I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY VALUE.----life doesn't have a monetary value, on the market, if that's what you mean, since it cannot be bought and sold, it cannot change owners.(how could I pay for an buy your life? What would that mean? When you lose it, it dissapears, it doesn't become mine.)

Btw, you are not giving a context, you're just presenting a situation. I asked for a philosophical context, in which all your concepts are defined, and your principles are derived from your axioms.

If at least you explainde what the word value means to you, that would at least give me something to go on.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[softwareNerd]

Okay then, I suppose there can't be an ER in an Objectivist society because of pseudo-rights liberals?

There'll be ERs and every real emergency will be treated for two simple reasons: that it would be rare for someone not to have insurance coverage for the emergency, and because the rarity of those without it would foster a benevolent attitude toward helping others an emergency. Edited November 11, 2008 by softwareNerd

[KevinDW78]

Why did he become a doctor

Doctors earn lots of money due to their high skill level. They get to live in nice, big houses and drive expensive cars.

[Zedic]

However, a doctor taking this oath doesn't promise to be available to evryone, it is only an ethical guideline to how medicine should be practiced, if the doctor chooses to practice it, voluntarily.

(emphasis mine)

So that's that. Since he doesn't promise to be your slave.

Thank you for providing my answers for me. More specifically, it's the doctor's moral choice to decide to not reduce the patient to nothing more than a cockroach when treating a patient in an immediate life or death situation.

You have still not defined the concept of value, nor have you described an ethical system according to which what you say is immoral is immoral, and you also haven't mentioned how you arrived at such an ethical system. Until yuo do that, I can't discuss with you the value of someone's life, since I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY VALUE.

I'm using the Objectivist concept that humans have inherent value.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm using the Objectivist concept that humans have inherent value.

Sorry, that sounds more like a principle, rather then the definition of a concept. One I missed, by the way, while reading objectivist literature.

However it gives me a clue as to what you believe value means, since you applied "inherent" to it. I don't agree with you on the inherent nature of any value, nor does objectivism to my knowledge.

I will define what value means to me, and you can decide wether you agree with this definition or not. Unfortunately, by my definition, a stranger's life doesn't necessarily cunstitute value for me.(although it might, depening on who he is and what he does.) Here's the definition:

To be a value means to be good for someone and for something. Life is one's fundamental value because life is conditional and requires a particular course of action to maintain it. Something can be good or bad only to a living organism, such as a human being, acting to survive. Man’s life is the ultimate value and the standard of value for a human being.

(my standard of value being my life, your standard of value your life, and so on)

[JMeganSnow]

But that's what I was talking about, the specific scenario where the patient is dying and needs immediate assistance or he'll die.

You are subsuming WAY too many concretes under a single heading, here. There is a big difference between throwing a few stitches into a healthy young person to prevent them bleeding to death and performing a $70,000 medical procedure on a sick old woman who only has a 25% chance of surviving it. Yet both people are dying and require immediate assistance. Most doctors will perform the first without thought of payment. If they routinely perform the *second* without thought of payment, they're going to go bankrupt.

Saving *everyone's* life regardless of circumstances is prohibitively expensive. Doctors should remain free to decide for themselves just how far in hock they're willing to go.

[Zedic]

You are subsuming WAY too many concretes under a single heading, here.

Am I the only one who can keep track of the flow of this thread?

I was speaking in response to what Zip said. More specifically,

The difference between medical aid and food should be quite clear. A severed artery takes only moments to kill, it takes quite some time to starve to death.

[ . . . ]

The thing that separates man from animals is the ability to reason. This ability makes each and every man valuable, as a man. If you out of hand reject that intrinsic value by allowing a man to die simply because you can not ascertain his ability to pay a bill then you are lowering the value of men to that of a cockroach or some other insect.

[ . . . ]

So, in a normal situation in an ER for instance if there is no true emergency such as a mass casualty situation then is it moral that a doctor ignore a dying man for want of payment? Is the idea of payment a higher value than a man's life if the option facing the Doctor is to save a life or sit and do nothing?

and the subsequent replies made to him. I was getting specific because I was replying to a specific thing Zip said.

[Zip]

Am I the only one who can keep track of the flow of this thread?

I was speaking in response to what Zip said. More specifically,

and the subsequent replies made to him. I was getting specific because I was replying to a specific thing Zip said.

But Zedic, all the responses to me include the concept that any aid offered is done freely, in compliance with the individual value judgments of the people giving that aid.

In the end it comes down to the question "What will be done about the poor man who can not pay" to which the only moral answer is "No one will be prevented from helping him."

[Zedic]

But Zedic, all the responses to me include the concept that any aid offered is done freely, in compliance with the individual value judgments of the people giving that aid.

Yes, that's why I said they were complicating things. I felt your reply had a pretty simple answer, which I gave.

In the end it comes down to the question "What will be done about the poor man who can not pay" to which the only moral answer is "No one will be prevented from helping him."

So my question is, what if no one does? There is no guarantee that someone will. Anyone can become that poor person. We're all susceptible to reaching rock bottom, if only for a moment in our lives. Ergo, that person can be me. That's why I'm concerned about a moral philosophy that would answer that question satisfactory enough for my personal self interest. Relying on the faith that "someone" is a bit lacking to me. What motivation is there to care about anything if it's always this amorphous "someone" that will do something?

[KevinDW78]

Anyone can become that poor person. We're all susceptible to reaching rock bottom, if only for a moment in our lives.

No we're not.

So my question is, what if no one does?

The morgue?

What motivation is there to care about anything if it's always this amorphous "someone" that will do something?

But that's exactly what you are suggesting we do! Instead of making sure that we DON'T ever become that poor person and that we always would have insurance or an agreement in place for mediacal care, we simply put our faith in that "someone" will help us. I would rather choose the former.

Edited November 11, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Zip]

So my question is, what if no one does? There is no guarantee that someone will. Anyone can become that poor person. We're all susceptible to reaching rock bottom, if only for a moment in our lives. Ergo, that person can be me. That's why I'm concerned about a moral philosophy that would answer that question satisfactory enough for my personal self interest. Relying on the faith that "someone" is a bit lacking to me. What motivation is there to care about anything if it's always this amorphous "someone" that will do something?

Would you? I hazard from your concern that you would help. Which leads me to the idea that caring, and recognizing the possibility of such an unfortunate event that you and those like you would contribute to a charity that had the amelioration of such a situation as it's casus beli.

Or if you would not volunteer to put your wallet where your concern is then you have no reason to profess to care.

Or worse yet if you do care but you believe the solution is to enslave every man for the sake of a minuscule few then you have donned the hat and cape of a moocher and your in the wrong place...

[Zip]

The idea that men are evil in that they would not help even when they can is a weapon of the reform liberal. That ideology has through years of hard work created this premise that without being told what to do, when and how, that we as a species would slip back into the dark ages when life was cruel, brutish and short.

And that is complete and utter bullshit.

Ask yourself this... are the majority of people you know, even if only peripherally, good, caring, reasonable, honest and humane?