Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 May 2000 16:29:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
804 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > I can't think of a good word...robber baron?
>
> engineer of the ME generation. :')
Oh, OK, Thanks. :-)
> > > > Do people need to take (moral/financial) responsibility for
> > > > things that they choose to do, things that entail risk, or
> > > > don't they?
Something that struck me while reading Ed's and Larry's responses to all this
is that ultimately it's not a matter of need. We _DO_ take moral and financial
responsibility for these things. If you sleep around, you die. If you have an
automobile accident and no one is insured, you probably fix it yourself. What
do you, Larry, mean by need?
> > First, what if Larry's question was presented with just the "Do
> > people need to take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they
> > choose to do" part?
>
> It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and
> LAR, people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for things that they
> "choose to do'", if I'm driving down the street and someone runs a red light
> and smashes into my car, under your philosophy, I should take the
> responsibility for the damages because it was a risk of driving I choose to
> take.
I think we've miscommunicated. In that scenario, the person who hits my car is
99% of the time responsible for the damages. What if they can't pay? And to
some extent you're right. I absolutely think that when someone gets behind the
wheel, they should understand that they are taking their own life, and the
lives of their surrounding peers, into their hands, and that they need to
behave responsibly.
What about a tougher example: You're driving down the left-turn lane on a busy
suburban highway surrounded by shopping malls. You're speeding a little, but
all the cars to your right are stopped at the red light and no one is ahead of
you at the left turn stop light. A bus in the lane immediately to your right
decides to move into the left-turn lane, and as the front end of your car
slides past, the bus slaps your car right in the middle and tosses you spinning
up onto a nine-inch curb totalling your car.
Clearly, the bus driver didn't check her mirror appropriately, but it's also
probably true that if you'd been going five MPH slower, you could have evaded
the bus. Who's at fault? I know what a court would decide, I was driving the
small car and had to sue the bus company. But it always nagged at me that I
bore some of the responsibility. Accidents are usually all one member's fault.
> There was risk involved, the accident was not my fault, but I should
> assume the responsibility for the damages?
You bear ultimate responsibility for your situation. In every way. To claim
less is to give up something so valuable that I can't even approach why you
might want to.
> Not a court in the land would agree.
Is this what we're discussing? Is it legal liability or responsibility in some
kind of more real sense?
> Yes there is no fault insurance, however, in my example above, my rates would
> instantly be raised by my insurance company through no fault of my own.
Through no fault of your own? What if you hadn't been out driving? What if
you'd been driving in places where the roadway association assured more careful
drivers? What if you didn't make a claim against your insurance?
> > Do you, in the general case, believe that people need to take responsibility
> > for themselves more than we see in society?
>
> In general yes.
Good.
> > Do you agree (and this is why I simplified Larry's question) that every • action
> > -- and even inaction -- includes risk? Some of it can reasonably be • foreseen,
> > and some can't.
>
> Yes, but the responsibility for the results of the risk cannot always be the
> responsibility of the risk taker - see my example above.
Thinking of your example above, what about the consequences if you'd been
uninsured? Shouldn't you bear the responsibility for that decision?
> > Now, the government as an absorber or moderator of risk is basically
> > insurance. Right? Insurance is a good thing.
> >
> > Why must we all be forced into a particular insurance system, or to have
> > insurance at all?
Was this not worth comment?
> Actually, many medical insurance plans dropped people who had AIDS. They are
> no longer permitted to do so.
And like Larry made a point, if there were freedom of insurance, those people
would have had the opportunity to procure insurance contracts that didn't allow
that.
> > Why not have the people who're funding the
> > research decide what should be researched?
> Because it would create a moral delimna - should white supremists be
> allowed to deny research funds for Sickle Cell Anemia?
How would they prevent that? I certainly wouldn't advocate any system that
allowed them to prevent my dollars from going to sickle-cell research. But
they should be able to not personally fund it if they don't want to.
> > (Or more likely, I don't, because I'm funny about medical research
> > on animals.)
This is off-topic for this thread, but taking this statement from my note
before, how do you (or anyone) feel about the fact that I am forced to fund
activity that feel is patently immoral? To put my stance in perspective, and I
expect the vast majority of you to disagree, I don't feel that there is any
moral difference between testing drugs on Negros or homosexuals (or any other
group) and testing drugs on monkeys or cats.
How would you feel if your tax dollars went toward rounding up Mexicans,
breeding them, and using them as test subjects until the test was over and they
could be destroyed?
> > So then, do you have a problem with the way Larry and I think that those
> > cost-benefit analyses should be carried out? I suppose objectivity (to
> > whatever extent it exists) needs to be ardently worked toward. How can we do
> > so?
>
> Well, since you and LAR are most concerned over how tax dollars out of your
> wallet are spent, taxes you would refuse to pay if you could, how about by • long
> term fiscal responsibility? Which medical research would prolong the working
> life of the most individuals? Which medical research would prevent the
> affected from becoming a Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid dependant?
Yeah, that sounds pretty good for a part of the equation. I agreed with that
point when you originally made it. Keeping people off the dole is a great
reason to factor into the cost-benefit analysis.
If by spending nothing on research, I'll have to spend $10,000 to feed sick
bums, but If can spend $5,000 on research and reduce the welfare cost to
$5,000, then it's totally worth it. And if I were given the choice of spending
an extra amount, I might still do that, just to be doing the right thing. But
I would never seek to legislate others doing so too.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: [snip] (...) You lost me there - "To claim less is to give up something so valuable that I can't even approach why you might want to." I have no idea what the comment means. (...) some (...) (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) engineer of the ME generation. :') (...) Simple, its not a black and white, yes or no, question. (...) It doesn't change a thing. A very simple example - if, according to you and LAR, people should "take (moral/financial) responsibility for (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
