With the exception of one timely diversion for St. Patrick's Day, we have been enjoying guest articles lately. I still have several more to tickle your minds. Justin wrote a provocative piece about punishments. Now he is stretching our minds with some new questions. Be forwarned, sometimes his questions are like fingernails on the chalk board. Tell us what you think!!
How Much of You, Your Time, Your Efforts Are Yours and How Much Are the World's?
by: Justin Thyfault
On the surface the question seems easy to answer. All of me is mine. All of my time is mine. And all of my efforts are mine. But theories and reality seldom ride the same bus for the whole trip.
Part of living in a society is the requirement that every person gives up a certain part of their autonomy. Just because we live in a free country there is no reason to think that everyone is free to do whatever they please. Each person is expected to sacrifice a portion of their free will to make the place better for everyone.
I think most people can agree that to some degree this is necessary.
But what happens when you ask certain people to give up more than you ask other people to give up?
There is currently a huge debate on how to reform our health care and health insurance system. One of the leading (legislatively) proposals is to implement a new tax on people who make more than $250,000 a year to pay for health coverage for, theoretically, everyone not making $250,000 or more. I know these are not the exact numbers and policies, but this is the idea that is being debated.
The argument has some valid points. Rich people have more money so they can sacrifice more. Actually it is not a sacrifice because they will still have more money than any person could ever need. Also, the government helped to create and protect that wealth and value, so it and the populous has a right to a portion of that value. The more money you have, the more that you need a government and a military to provide the comfort and security to maintain and protect your disproportionate wealth, so you should pay more. Likewise, if a few people have to make a sacrifice to provide for and help ten people, a thousand people, one million people, or everyone, the ends justify the means. As a society don't we need to help the greatest number of people as we can?
But is forced altruism really an exercise of justice?
LeBron James as a super-athlete, not a millionaire, is a great example. Do we as the populous have a right to experiment on his super-natural body or harvest his organs to promote the growth of anatomical science and general health? A lot could be learned from the superior performance of his body and organs that would help millions of us live longer and stronger lives. Cells or possibly even stem-cells from his body could be used to create super-organs for countless people on the cusp of death. But should he be forced to sacrifice a part of himself or his time (not his life), to help undetermined people without his consent? Why or why not?
Without getting into the validity of the legality of abortion let's consider another example.
In America fetal abortion is legal though the first trimester. The discussion of the topic could congest the internet for eternity, but in America that is the current precedent of the law. The people, through representative governance, have determined that a woman's right to her body extends to what is in her body up until the end of the first trimester. Whatever is in her body, regardless of how YOU define it, is not a cognitive self-evident human being but a possession of her and her body in the legal sense.
So up until the end of the first trimester the fetus is a possession, not a person; this is the view of women's rights and fetuses in our common laws. In our society possessions (wealth) are subject taxation and other forms of duties and obligations. If the government and populous has the right to impose duties and restrictions on possessions why should a fetus be any different? Isn't it not a human yet, just property of the woman like a wad of cash? Stem cells from fetuses have proven to be uniquely beneficial in organ development and research. For the benefit of the countless masses should women be forced to have a fetal abortion to promote the research for the longevity of the rest of us? Would that not be just another form of taxation, like taxing any other form of wealth and possession? A person in plenty providing for those that lack? Should a woman be forced by societal obligation to get pregnant to provide a fetus for research to help the rest of us?
To some people all of these are a violation of their rights. To others one or two seem wrong, but the others make sense. So as a society, what is just?
On the surface the question seems easy to answer. All of me is mine. All of my time is mine. And all of my efforts are mine. But theories and reality seldom ride the same bus for the whole trip.
Part of living in a society is the requirement that every person gives up a certain part of their autonomy. Just because we live in a free country there is no reason to think that everyone is free to do whatever they please. Each person is expected to sacrifice a portion of their free will to make the place better for everyone.
I think most people can agree that to some degree this is necessary.
But what happens when you ask certain people to give up more than you ask other people to give up?
There is currently a huge debate on how to reform our health care and health insurance system. One of the leading (legislatively) proposals is to implement a new tax on people who make more than $250,000 a year to pay for health coverage for, theoretically, everyone not making $250,000 or more. I know these are not the exact numbers and policies, but this is the idea that is being debated.
The argument has some valid points. Rich people have more money so they can sacrifice more. Actually it is not a sacrifice because they will still have more money than any person could ever need. Also, the government helped to create and protect that wealth and value, so it and the populous has a right to a portion of that value. The more money you have, the more that you need a government and a military to provide the comfort and security to maintain and protect your disproportionate wealth, so you should pay more. Likewise, if a few people have to make a sacrifice to provide for and help ten people, a thousand people, one million people, or everyone, the ends justify the means. As a society don't we need to help the greatest number of people as we can?
But is forced altruism really an exercise of justice?
LeBron James as a super-athlete, not a millionaire, is a great example. Do we as the populous have a right to experiment on his super-natural body or harvest his organs to promote the growth of anatomical science and general health? A lot could be learned from the superior performance of his body and organs that would help millions of us live longer and stronger lives. Cells or possibly even stem-cells from his body could be used to create super-organs for countless people on the cusp of death. But should he be forced to sacrifice a part of himself or his time (not his life), to help undetermined people without his consent? Why or why not?
Without getting into the validity of the legality of abortion let's consider another example.
In America fetal abortion is legal though the first trimester. The discussion of the topic could congest the internet for eternity, but in America that is the current precedent of the law. The people, through representative governance, have determined that a woman's right to her body extends to what is in her body up until the end of the first trimester. Whatever is in her body, regardless of how YOU define it, is not a cognitive self-evident human being but a possession of her and her body in the legal sense.
So up until the end of the first trimester the fetus is a possession, not a person; this is the view of women's rights and fetuses in our common laws. In our society possessions (wealth) are subject taxation and other forms of duties and obligations. If the government and populous has the right to impose duties and restrictions on possessions why should a fetus be any different? Isn't it not a human yet, just property of the woman like a wad of cash? Stem cells from fetuses have proven to be uniquely beneficial in organ development and research. For the benefit of the countless masses should women be forced to have a fetal abortion to promote the research for the longevity of the rest of us? Would that not be just another form of taxation, like taxing any other form of wealth and possession? A person in plenty providing for those that lack? Should a woman be forced by societal obligation to get pregnant to provide a fetus for research to help the rest of us?
To some people all of these are a violation of their rights. To others one or two seem wrong, but the others make sense. So as a society, what is just?
1 comment:
Have you ever read any John Stuart Mill? What you describe at the beginning is the idea of a social contract.
Post a Comment