<p>^ Me. If you’re referring to some ape-men that ate rocks, what do* you* know about their ethics? And how are they relevant to us humans now?</p>
<p>Not ape-men. But I’m sure there was a time when humans behaved like animals, recognizing no rights.
My only point is that saying “X was not a right earlier, and therefore should not be right” is rubbish.</p>
<p>^ “You’re sure”. On what grounds? Or is that a baseless assumption? I think that as long as there has been people, they have had a code of morals, and murder has been wrong.</p>
<p>^Alright, look at any old civilization with absolute rule. The ruler did not have to respect the right to life/property/free speech or any other of the ‘Basic human rights’ of any subject. Does that make these non-rights?</p>
<p>^ I disagree with the basic assumption that both you and jason are making, that the fact a right wasn’t commonly recognised in a time period means it wasn’t a right. If health care is a right now, then it was a right back then that people were robbed of. I don’t believe it is a right, but that’s something to be argued. Jason is saying “people back then didn’t commonly receive health care, therefore it wasn’t a right, therefore it isn’t a right now”. You are saying “people back then didn’t commonly receive life or property, but they do now, therefore rights change over time”. I’m saying “people back then had certain rights. People now have the same rights. How well those rights were protected has varied over time.”</p>
<p>
No.
I guess that was a bit ambiguous and doesn’t even make much sense. That made a LOT more sense in my head before I typed it.</p>
<p>I was saying that what Jason said was rubbish. That’s it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, no. In many societies, you don’t have the right to life. In many CONTEMPORARY societies, the government can take you and murder you and there won’t be an eyelash batted. </p>
<p>What do you define as rights? The right to life? Because that has not always been a right and in many ways is not even a right now.</p>
<p>I see health care as part of your “right to life”. By providing affordable health care to those living in America, we are providing the “right to life” for many people. Do you have any idea how many people die of preventable ailments every year? A gross number. I think that if we HAVE the resources to cure people and we CHOOSE not to simply because they “can’t afford it” then we are denying them their “right to life”. Does a millionaire have more of a “right to life” than a poor person? I don’t think so, but that is what our “health care” system tells us.</p>
<p>EDIT:
</p>
<p>Humans ARE animals :rolleyes:. And it would do us QUITE a bit of good to learn from the higher animals which humans have fallen from.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Take an anthropology class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s a trade off - freedom vs. order - and we make these trade-offs all the time. We have to. We don’t sacrifice the right to life now, but we give away a big chunk of our income to fund the police and other services. We give away some of our rights as individuals to secure some things that individuals by themselves cannot attain, which is just another part of social contract theory.</p>
<p>You also have to note the fact that the subjects almost always weren’t allowed to kill each other.</p>
<p>
I really, really should.</p>
<p>I don’t really know what to say to the rest. I have no idea how it relates to my point (that post #135 is rubbish)</p>
<p>Basically, the point I was trying to get across was that the right to life may have been a right in some sense, just one that could be violated for security - just like today in many countries (and in some cases, America). I can’t say I truly know whether they considered it a right or not, since I can’t see into their minds (it’s probably more likely they just followed the general principle of not killing people while not thinking about rights or anything), but I doubt you truly know either.</p>
<p>^^ Agreed on rubbishness of post 135.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correction: In many societies, your right to life is regularly violated by the government without anyone batting an eyelid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sadly, many people no longer “hold these truths to be self-evident”. If you don’t hold that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” then there really isn’t any reason for people to have any rights at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer is that I don’t think the “right to life” includes the “right to the longest, most productive life possible”. I don’t have time to puzzle out the long answer right now.</p>
<p>You realize, MM, that they never meant “all men”. They meant “all Christian, land-owning, white men”. </p>
<p>I still think health care falls under life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well then, where does this right to life stop? As soon as the baby pops out? As long as the baby takes a breath then we no longer have an obligation to help it live?</p>
<p>^Yes, I realize that. They were influenced by their times, just as we are by ours.</p>
<p>I believe parents have an obligation to train and equip the person they brought into the world… Then once they reach adulthood, they’re on their own, unless they team up with others, which is what we call society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>harm = negative impact</p>
<p>^It has a negative impact on me when you don’t give me all your money. But I doubt you would argue that you are “harming” me by not doing that.</p>
<p>Doing nothing has no impact. You remain in the same state you are in.</p>
<p>^ Then doesn’t not giving healthcare have no impact? They remain in the state they were in?</p>
<p>Yeah - until they get sick. Then the uninsured become a burden on the system, thus harming others.</p>
<p>So I guess what all of the last 100 posts boils down to is: You think that the infringment upon rights caused by the people who go to the emergency room and don’t pay is greater than the infringement caused by requiring every American to carry full health insurance, and I think the opposite.</p>