Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists

• Windex007@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Kinda, I think we’re in the same zone, but I feel you’re kinda glancing off some important points, and also bringing in unrelated concepts.

  What if the money spent on the mri could have been spent on alzheimers?

  Well, if at the time it was reasonable to expect that the investment in MRIs was the most effective thing to do for society that’s fine. That’s just a choice made with reasonable expectations of a positive outcome that ultimately turned out to be suboptimal. It isn’t reasonable to expect that smoking won’t statistically be detrimental to your health. It’s a self-inflicted wound, done knowing this was a likly outcome. This is the critical difference there.

  Now, as for unrelated topics, you’ve muddled two distinct ideas: “moral evaluation of actions”, and “evaluation of worthiness to recieve care”.

  If you need an ER doctor to pull a dildo out of your ass, but didn’t reasonably expect to demand society to end up having to pay for it, then I see no moral issue, just like if someone forgets thier hair straightener on and thier house lights on fire and the firefighters risk thier lives to rescue you.

  If you fully expected to require an ER doctor beforehand, yah, morality issue there. If you light your own house on fire on purpose because you wanted to get carried down a ladder, same deal.

  Doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to be helped. Doesn’t imply that you must not, may, or are obligated to feel contempt or whatever. Evaluating the STATE of a moral agent RESPONDING to a moral transgression of another is several steps removed from the ideas of the morality of self-harm in a social collective with finite support resources.

  Anyways, long story short… I don’t mean to say that the two cases are morally identical. They’re both actions that needlessly risk degrading the overall health of your society.

  There are OTHER moral considerations around fucking roadkill. I’m not saying being obese and fucking roadkill are somehow GENERALLY morally equivalent.

  source

  • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    The only reason that I keep bringing up worthiness to receive care is to reaffirm that idea that the hospital is a safety net. That is the only way I think about it. I’m not looking for efficiencies. Its efficiencies do not affect my moral calculus.

    If there were enough smokers that the hospital had to triage the issue to focus on some guy’s brain tumor, that’s fine. That’s a budgeting issue. I would also choose the nicer of two people if both were hanging off either end of a bridge.

    Would it be nice to spend obesity money on something else? Sure. It can’t be, though. It’s hard to see obesity and cost as a moral issue when I don’t actually view the obese, nor the smoker, nor the drug addict, nor the suicidal, nor the adrenaline junkie, nor the MMA fighter, nor the venomous snake guy as burdens. Every one of these people “should know” that they will cost the medical industry money; they might be the ones to “kill” a guy with a brain tumor. I’m not bothered by this because these are the very people the medical industry is built to serve. It exists for them.

    A medical industry that cannot accomodate obesity is one that is failing its own constituents. It is failing to serve its purpose. So, becoming obese, and costing the healthcare system money, is immaterial. It doesn’t matter.

    But, a guy in the supermarket sneezing on people is a burden. Not because he is straining medical services and indirectly murdering in-care patients, but because there are people in the supermarket who now must be burdened with illness.

    So this is what my view comes down to:

    • If a person gets someone else sick, it is their fault for spreading disease.
    • If a 100-capacity hospital is unable to accomodate a 101st person, that is a systemic failure of the hospital, or its backing government.

    This view is useful because it means I am socially equipped to punish people for anti-social and irresponsible medical behavior, but also that I remain sympathetic to victims of the tobacco and sugar industries. And that guy with the snake.

    It’s also not that complicated, because my problem is chiefly with anti-social behavior.

    How does this relate to necrophilia?.. I don’t know. He probably shouldn’t do that.

    source

    • Windex007@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Ok. I think I need to tap out. I don’t think we can have the same conversation.

      There are two conversations: one about morality, and one about how a hospital should be run. They’re both great conversations.

      I keep trying to talk about morality and ethics. To me, it’s the much more interesting conversation. It’s extremely rare to actually get the opportunity to get into moral philosophy, so even fucking roadkill is great.

      It’s not that I necessarily disagree with what you’re saying. It’s just that you’re not at all talking about morals and ethics, and each attempt i make to pull you back in is met in failure. Now you’re talking about “fault” which is a completely distinct philosophical concept and “failure of the hospital system” which is not really anything.

      Yeah hospitals should treat everyone. I have universal Healthcare. How to run a hospital or a health system is a tedious conversation for me. The moral and ethical discussion and examination of right and wrong of actions when a moral agent is part of a social collective with health support and limited resources is interesting.

      But that’s OK. Im not saying you’re necessarily wrong about anything.

      source

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I was thinking the same. :p
        My last comment was definitely a final word of sorts.

        I think we may just be mutually disinterested in the other’s conversation. I can sense the thing you’re trying to pull me into, and in truth, it would be possible to get me to say “the smoker should stop smoking, as a moral vow to their own betterment, or even to their society’s”—I don’t like smoking—the problem is just that I find this to be so trivial that it is not worthy of consideration. It isn’t pragmatic enough.

        I will freely admit that you probably spend more time thinking about the subject matter of moral philosophy—I don’t really study it at all, I’m just a strong believer in justice.

        But anyway, I appreciate the conversation. I hope it wasn’t too obnoxious, haha.

        source

        • -> View More Comments