Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
A great deal of developed countries have state-provided healthcare - that is, an insurance option subsidized by the government that is available to (and/or compulsory for) all citizens. When the government runs insurance, those that are hurt are paid for directly by the government, that is supported by our taxes; therefore, when someone is hurt the entirety of society pays a little bit to help them get well again. Does this mean that we have the right to judge those that do things that hurt themselves, as we are actively paying for their recovery?

If so, does that apply to other things that taxes pay for that we don't approve of? If a person pays taxes, do they have the right to judge soldiers that choose to join the army since they pay the soldier's salary in some small amount? Or are our taxes more complex than "I'm paying for everything the government does" and require a different approach?

Edit for definitional clarification: My question is not if we are capable of thinking certain things or saying certain things, because that's a dumb question with a dumb answer. The question is whether it is morally right or correct or ethical to judge a person under the circumstances I have already outlined. Whether the judgment is merely an internal judgment in your mind or a judgment you express to other people is up to you; it's perfectly reasonable to have different answers to both of those, or perfectly reasonable to think that thoughts are inherently without ethical right or wrong so the question isn't valid for internal thoughts.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
They're entitled to as much of a say as they individually pay for me. So, rounded up, that's a penny. If someone gets uppity about how I live my life, I'll give them a penny and tell them that it more than covers the sum total of my medical bills that they will pay for in their lifetime.
VNs are superior to anime, don't @ me

Kyrul

Long Live The Note

Age 30
Male
Missouri
Seen February 28th, 2019
Posted February 28th, 2019
841 posts
11.7 Years
Yes, civilians do have the right to judge, and they should judge. It is a important part of a democracy. Government is meant to be the an organized voice for it's people, it serves the people of it's country. People need to question and judge their government in order to keep it balanced.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
What's judging? Doesn't everybody have the right to have and express their opinion? And even if they do, it's not like their "right" can be taken away without the use of force. Obviously I do not have the right to interpret legislation (and have that interpretation enforced).

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness

Age 33
Male
Temple of Light
Seen November 25th, 2017
Posted October 21st, 2016
8,122 posts
19.1 Years
We can debate about elective surgery, sure. Like cosmetic stuff.

If you're sick or injured, you deserve treatment. But what treatment is covered can be the focus of conversation

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
Yes, civilians do have the right to judge, and they should judge. It is a important part of a democracy. Government is meant to be the an organized voice for it's people, it serves the people of it's country. People need to question and judge their government in order to keep it balanced.
So you believe we should judge government for the way they spend their money - what about when the government has a set payout that you feel someone is "taking advantage" of? Do you have a right to judge that person?

What's judging? Doesn't everybody have the right to have and express their opinion? And even if they do, it's not like their "right" can be taken away without the use of force. Obviously I do not have the right to interpret legislation (and have that interpretation enforced).
I'm not talking about a legal right or an ability, I'm talking about an ethical right - if you judge that person, do you think you would be doing something morally justifiable, or morally correct? This isn't a legal question, because most legal questions are black and white; this is an ethics question that's wrapped up in the way we structure governments - everyone paying into a system that does various things for various people, a system in which sometimes we pay more than we take out and vice versa.

As far as "what's judging," I'll let you define that for yourself but I'm going by the basic dictionary definition of judgment.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
I don't see how a person's "right" to judge is a moral issue. It doesn't even affect someone else until the judgment is expressed, and even then whether that's moral or not is still open-ended. I think the "right" to judge is pretty hard to deprive, everybody has the right to hold an opinion, even if there are those who think it's wrong.

Kyrul

Long Live The Note

Age 30
Male
Missouri
Seen February 28th, 2019
Posted February 28th, 2019
841 posts
11.7 Years
So you believe we should judge government for the way they spend their money - what about when the government has a set payout that you feel someone is "taking advantage" of? Do you have a right to judge that person?
Yes, I do believe we should judge government for the way they spend money and I believe that it's a good thing that we judge government. A government is meant to represent it's people, if it's people do not agree with what their government is doing, then yes they should be criticized.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
Yes, I do believe we should judge government for the way they spend money and I believe that it's a good thing that we judge government. A government is meant to represent it's people, if it's people do not agree with what their government is doing, then yes they should be criticized.
Yeah, I'm trying to ask you a new question here - I'm asking if that applies to the people as well. That's what the thread is really about. I think most people agree that we should have some kind of control over our government, but the question is "if you pay into government programs, do you have the right to judge those that use those programs as you're technically paying for them to use the programs?" Specifically the people that are not part of the government, normal citizens like us, using government programs paid for by the government, and by extension tax money from us.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
Of course we have the right to judge, who took it away from us? Aren't we entitled to believe what we want? I mean, one's right to believe isn't usually mentioned with limitations, so I'm not getting why you phrase the question as "does one have the right to judge" as if there's the possibility that we may lack that right.

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
Generally good people would argue that if something is ethically wrong, then we wouldn't have the ethical right to do it. The term "right" has definitional issues in this crowd though, so for clarity's sake I will clear up what I'm meaning, so you stop arguing about definitional points that contribute nothing to the actual discussion:

My question is not if we are capable of thinking certain things or saying certain things, because that's a dumb question with a dumb answer. The question is whether it is morally right or correct or ethical to judge a person under the circumstances I have already outlined. Whether the judgment is merely an internal judgment in your mind or a judgment you express to other people is up to you; it's perfectly reasonable to have different answers to both of those, or perfectly reasonable to think that thoughts are inherently without ethical right or wrong so the question isn't valid for internal thoughts.

Kanzler, as far as "Aren't we entitled to believe what we want?", that's not a given or a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. That's one of the relevant questions - can a thought be ethically wrong? If so, is it ethically wrong to judge someone in our mind for taking actions that end in the government paying more to them (or any insurance for that matter)? What about speaking to them about it, or other people publicly?

I'll edit the clarification into the OP so there is no more confusion or posts about definitions, because posts about definitions are basically the worst posts to debate about. "My definition is more accurate than yours" ends only in pain and suffering.


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Kanzler

naughty biscotti

Male
Toronto
Seen April 22nd, 2022
Posted March 11th, 2022
5,957 posts
14.8 Years
I'll be the first to provide an offering: like it is with sexual fantasies, thoughts aren't wrong until they turn into action. I don't think it's wrong to judge people at all. Furthermore, we might not even make a decision to judge someone - why should it be considered "wrong" to do something we have no control over?
Male
Somewhere in the universe
Seen June 2nd, 2015
Posted November 25th, 2014
666 posts
9.6 Years
We have a right to free speech... So we can judge. Should we judge? No. Will we judge? Yes. I would be pretty ticked if I had to pay taxes on my neighbor who got hurt jumping off his roof. I would give his family some money to help pay for surgery. How would you feel if you were judges because you were in the ER because someone hit you in a car accident. It wasn't your fault! Either way, it's bad to judge. But, unfortunately, our sin nature gets in our way and we judge. A lot.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who ever believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I believe in Jesus Christ my Savior. If you do too, and aren't scared to admit it, then copy and paste this in your signature.

Member of the Christian Community!

Sopheria

響け〜 響け!

深き海の彼方
Seen July 19th, 2022
Posted December 17th, 2017
4,904 posts
9.5 Years
I think I know what you're saying. You're saying that with universal healthcare, all of society is paying for everyone's healthcare. So normally, someone's personal health choices like smoking, eating too much fast food, etc. wouldn't be anyone else's business. But with universal healthcare, your personal health choices are all of society's business because they're paying for your treatment.

If that's what you're saying...then I would say yes. With universal healthcare, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have things that are bad for your health illegal, with the justification that those things drive up healthcare costs and therefore drive up government spending. That's why if there's going to be universal health care, I think there should always be a private healthcare market as well. That way if you want to do things that the government deems unhealthy, you can still do them: you just won't be elligible for state provided healthcare.
Paired with Dragon and Koakuma

Oryx

CoquettishCat

Age 30
Female
Seen January 30th, 2015
Posted December 27th, 2014
13,184 posts
12.2 Years
I think I know what you're saying. You're saying that with universal healthcare, all of society is paying for everyone's healthcare. So normally, someone's personal health choices like smoking, eating too much fast food, etc. wouldn't be anyone else's business. But with universal healthcare, your personal health choices are all of society's business because they're paying for your treatment.

If that's what you're saying...then I would say yes. With universal healthcare, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have things that are bad for your health illegal, with the justification that those things drive up healthcare costs and therefore drive up government spending. That's why if there's going to be universal health care, I think there should always be a private healthcare market as well. That way if you want to do things that the government deems unhealthy, you can still do them: you just won't be elligible for state provided healthcare.
Yeah, that's my question exactly!

But then we get into tricky moral territory - you will technically be more safe if you walk everywhere instead of driving a car. It would follow, then, that if you drive a car, you should be judged because you're more likely to hurt yourself, just like if you overeat. Or if you decide to become an athlete in a high-impact sport, or if you forget to brush your teeth - all of these things have negative effects on your health and would potentially require more money to fix you up. Do we ethically have the right to judge those people as well, or is there a line? Where is the line, if so?


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Male
Somewhere in the universe
Seen June 2nd, 2015
Posted November 25th, 2014
666 posts
9.6 Years
Sin nature? Human nature... If I think something is stupid I am going to call you out on it. It's necessary and we should be judging people every day, to assess what we think about people, ideas, actions, ourselves, in order to constantly improve and define what is right and wrong. It's NATURAL to assess and judge everything in the world around you. Your "God" gave you a brain, use it!

Granted there are some things that you can judge people on but shouldn't let it affect your treatment of them, like the colour of their skin or how they look. Even going into work and thinking "Well, I think Stacey is wearing ugly shoes today" that's judgement, your own personal opinion, it's neither right nor wrong, to share it is valid but don't be surprised if the other person does not agree with that judgement.

On the topic of the OP I think everybody pitching in through taxes to pay for when a few people need health care is a wonderful idea. Taxes also pay for things like roads, schools, police etc... Unless you'd like to build or defend everything yourself and have no protection in the way of a government organising and controlling society then universal taxation is the best possible way to ensure progress.

"So this is what my tax money is paying for" when we see arguably poor implementation of it is quite a common expression. As individual adults the best way you have to disagree with that is to lobby your representative in government or vote differently. We should be offering constructive criticism to those who work at leading us.

I know that's still not what the OP was referring to, it was more along the lines of "if injury was caused foolishly or intentionally we should call that person out and not give them medical treatment or expect them to pay back the money I paid for it, since they're an idiot."

Doctors swear an oath to protect and preserve human life no matter what the circumstance, they have to treat injuries, no matter how they were caused. I 100% don't think we should be changing that. Unfortunately the taxpayer does have to pay for stupid health decisions but we can't remove your right to treatment, therefore the government does health promotion instead, to change peoples minds about engaging in unhealthy activities in the first place.

If somebody breaks their leg jumping off a roof i'm going to judge that they're an idiot, firstly for hurting themselves and also that a significant amount of money will pay for their treatment when it could have gone to something that improved society, not just saved one brainless moron. Still, I feel ethically bound to save that person, although they can expect some stern words.

By the way, things like cosmetic surgery or more specialised, non-essential forms of healthcare are not covered by Medicare, which is the government health system in Australia. If you want that you need insurance or to pay for the treatment upfront. That's good, but kinda sucks if you have a problem that's deemed non-essential but can't afford the attention due to low socioeconomic status. Still, the government can't pay to fix all the peoples problems, sometimes you need to use your own personal money.

We can't stop all non-accidental injury but we can focus on preventing it as much as possible through safe behaviours and potentially banning or charging people for the misuse of stupid things like alcohol or drugs. Oryx, since you support drug use I would encourage you to support taxation to pay for healthcare. It'll save people with the same mindset as you when they end up in the ER due to a nasty reaction to a drug. Unless you'd rather they die. Personally I think a life is a life, we can judge people for being stupid but we should still help them. The solution is to stop them from engaging in that activity. Tobacco should be banned outright, it is nothing but terrible for people. Consider that infringing upon your right to do what you want with your body but yeah, we can change that with a referendum.
Are you judging me right now? (It's a rhetorical question). What I meant to say is that judging people by thinking, "they are ugly in red". It's wrong. If you have a problem with it say. "I love it when you wear green" when they wear something green. If someone jumped off the roof and needs help, I will help them, no question. There just needs to be a limit or ban like I think you said. Was the gratuitous comment in the beginning necessary?
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who ever believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

I believe in Jesus Christ my Savior. If you do too, and aren't scared to admit it, then copy and paste this in your signature.

Member of the Christian Community!

Sopheria

響け〜 響け!

深き海の彼方
Seen July 19th, 2022
Posted December 17th, 2017
4,904 posts
9.5 Years
Doctors swear an oath to protect and preserve human life no matter what the circumstance, they have to treat injuries, no matter how they were caused. I 100% don't think we should be changing that. Unfortunately the taxpayer does have to pay for stupid health decisions but we can't remove your right to treatment, therefore the government does health promotion instead, to change peoples minds about engaging in unhealthy activities in the first place.

If somebody breaks their leg jumping off a roof i'm going to judge that they're an idiot, firstly for hurting themselves and also that a significant amount of money will pay for their treatment when it could have gone to something that improved society, not just saved one brainless moron. Still, I feel ethically bound to save that person, although they can expect some stern words.

By the way, things like cosmetic surgery or more specialised, non-essential forms of healthcare are not covered by Medicare, which is the government health system in Australia. If you want that you need insurance or to pay for the treatment upfront. That's good, but kinda sucks if you have a problem that's deemed non-essential but can't afford the attention due to low socioeconomic status. Still, the government can't pay to fix all the peoples problems, sometimes you need to use your own personal money.

We can't stop all non-accidental injury but we can focus on preventing it as much as possible through safe behaviours and potentially banning or charging people for the misuse of stupid things like alcohol or drugs. Oryx, since you support drug use I would encourage you to support taxation to pay for healthcare. It'll save people with the same mindset as you when they end up in the ER due to a nasty reaction to a drug. Unless you'd rather they die. Personally I think a life is a life, we can judge people for being stupid but we should still help them. The solution is to stop them from engaging in that activity. Tobacco should be banned outright, it is nothing but terrible for people. Consider that infringing upon your right to do what you want with your body but yeah, we can change that with a referendum.
There's a problem with that reasoning though, specifically the bit about "Doctors swear an oath to protect and preserve human life no matter what the circumstance, they have to treat injuries, no matter how they were caused". Doctors swear an oath to protect and preserve human life for a price. They're not sworn to work for free. They're only human, after all, they need to make a living too.

With government run healthcare, it's essentially the taxpayers paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it. And the way I see it, taxpayers do reserve the right to refuse to pay for someone's healthcare if they don't consider them to be worth covering.
Paired with Dragon and Koakuma

Tek

Age 33
Male
Kansas City
Seen 2 Days Ago
Posted May 1st, 2020
939 posts
9.6 Years
I think I know what you're saying. You're saying that with universal healthcare, all of society is paying for everyone's healthcare. So normally, someone's personal health choices like smoking, eating too much fast food, etc. wouldn't be anyone else's business. But with universal healthcare, your personal health choices are all of society's business because they're paying for your treatment.
Yeah, that's my question exactly!

But then we get into tricky moral territory - you will technically be more safe if you walk everywhere instead of driving a car. It would follow, then, that if you drive a car, you should be judged because you're more likely to hurt yourself, just like if you overeat. Or if you decide to become an athlete in a high-impact sport, or if you forget to brush your teeth - all of these things have negative effects on your health and would potentially require more money to fix you up. Do we ethically have the right to judge those people as well, or is there a line? Where is the line, if so?

It's already the case the case that what you do with your life affects those around you. It always has been, because no one lives in a vacuum.

Even in the private healthcare system, the fees that you pay are determined in part by the way that others in your demographic group act. Smoking cigarettes puts carbon monoxide and tar into the air that everyone breathes, not just into your own lungs. When you have unhealthy eating habits and get heart disease or whatever else, a doctor now has to spend time with you due to your poor choices, instead of with others who may need care because of a genetic disease or injuries from an assault or accident.

Humans are, at the same time, individual agents and members of a community. As agents, we are entitled to certain rights; as community members we have certain responsibilities. I've found that people generally are very concerned with and adamant about their rights, but get defensive or outright hostile when presented with responsibilities. In many cases, I've seen people outright deny that their responsibilities are important or even extant, which is an incredible act of selective awareness.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong making evaluations about other people's "personal" decisions, because - as we've just seen - individual actions affect the society at large. However, I think that this approach is backwards. "Finger-pointing" is useful in recognizing problem areas. But it should be obvious that the domain in which you have the most control, the most ability to make things better, is not the world outside you, but the world within you.

It seems to me that the finger is pointing the wrong way; assuming of course that the goal in finger-pointing is fixing problems and not just assigning blame, saying "Look, there's the problem, there's the damage! It wasn't in me after all!"

GoldenHouou

Abstract Nonsense

Page 26
Seen August 27th, 2018
Posted July 2nd, 2016
586 posts
18 Years
What I meant to say is that judging people by thinking, "they are ugly in red". It's wrong. If you have a problem with it say. "I love it when you wear green" when they wear something green. If someone jumped off the roof and needs help, I will help them, no question. There just needs to be a limit or ban like I think you said. Was the gratuitous comment in the beginning necessary?
Wait, you're saying that it's wrong to even judge people in our minds? Even if it's over something like what they wear? Woah, there. Nobody's perfect enough to never have ill thought about people around them, sorry to say.

It's human nature to judge, and as long as your negative opinion of someone or something doesn't affect how you treat them, I don't see anything wrong with it. Especially if it's something as harmless as their choice of clothing, come on. If I see someone prancing around in stuff that doesn't suit them, I am going to think "wow, they don't wear that well". I might even think it ugly. It's an opinion, and it's automatic, and I don't see how it's "wrong". Will I go up to the person and tell them their fashion sense sucks? Of course not. Will I refuse to associate with them because of it? Of course not.

And if someone jumped off a roof, I would help them too - while judging them and thinking what an idiot they were for doing it.

To be more on topic, I'd say that to a certain extent, yes it does. I won't judge someone for getting injured in an accident or even a common fight and needing medical service using my money. Now, if a drug addict regularly pops up in the local hospital due to their intoxicated escapades, yeaaah, I'm going to judge them, and I'm going to judge them hard. Yes, it's not my life, but if my money is spent on taking care of the guy (money that, mind you, could have been also used to treat someone who needed it for reasons not dependent on them), I believe I at the very least have the right to go "♥♥♥♥ that guy."

The military service part is a moot point in my case, considering we have mandatory military service here.

Current rps
| none ): |