On 15 Mar 2010, at 14:32, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 16 March 2010 00:00, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

            This article is most troubling to be as it seems that its
argument has become accepted by many people without consideration of the
logical consequence.


Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?
            Any comment is welcome.

The problem is that "right" has no objective basis. It's like "good"
or "beauty": a concept made up by humans.

The concepts of moon, rock, galaxies, and numbers, are also made by human, but they may relate to things no done by humans. Let me (try to) give you a definition of beauty. X is beautiful relatively to universal Y, if universal Y is attracted by X. X is very beautiful if X attracts a large class of universal Y. X is universally beautiful if X attracts all universal Y.

Good is a notion quite close to consciousness. We cannot define it, but we know it most clearly than anything else. Most people are clear about what they find good, in the instant (as opposed to long term effect which makes things having both good and bad aspects).

Subjective is true and undoubtable, but non definable, and non communicable, still less institutionalizable.

Good is related to the partial ability that universal machines to get partial and local level of satisfaction, sometimes eventually based on universal goal (like "survive").

I tend to believe also in universal right. Although I doubt any temporal construction other than education, schools, academies, research institutes, can help to develop it. I would say that all universal machine have, at birth, the right to search happiness. It may be a moral duty to share the tools facilitating that search.

You obviously think that
public health care is morally wrong while others (probably most people
in the world) think that the lack of public health care is morally
wrong. You could have a rational discussion about, say, the efficiency
of public versus private health care, but with the core moral issue
you will reach an impasse, because your premises differ.

I may disagree. There is a quasi-universal reason for which health should be a public care, or at least a matter of making heathy people to provide the money. Why? Because if you don't force the healthy people to provide money to the medical system(s), then, it will be in the survival interest of the medical systems that there are as many unhealthy people as possible. The results will be like making efficacious and cheap medication illegal, and encourage, by making legal, medications which are inefficacious and unhealthy.

Bruno Marchal


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to