Anonymous #1 3d

Furthermore, healthcare being a concrete human right (justifying again, your natural rights) would suggest one has a right to another’s talent and labor and time (an impossibility given that natural rights are not legitimate when they take away like and just advantage from another. There simply is no “right” to healthcare. It is both a “privilege” and an “ideal”, but hardly a “right”

-3

Anonymous #1 3d

this argument rests on a narrow view of rights that isn’t universally accepted. saying healthcare isn’t a right because it depends on others’ labor ignores that all rights depend on social duties. even the right to property forces others not to take what’s yours. it also mixes up health with healthcare. no one says people have a right to be healthy, only a right to access care when they’re not. if the right to life means anything, it has to include the means to preserve it.

0

Anonymous #1 3d

first, on the idea of universal character, healthcare actually meets that standard better than most rights. every human being is vulnerable to illness and injury, and everyone needs some form of care to survive. that makes healthcare universal in both relevance and necessity.

0

Anonymous #1 3d

second, on the justification of natural rights, if the right to life is truly natural, then access to what sustains life (like food, water, and healthcare) must logically follow. a right to life without the means to preserve it is hollow. claiming that healthcare violates natural rights because it involves others’ labor ignores that all rights depend on social duties. access to your rights don’t appear out of nowhere, countless ppl work to ensure that others can exercise those basic rights.

0

Anonymous #1 3d

and on the third point about ideals, saying health is just an “ought” or “should” with no substance completely misses what makes human rights real. rights only start as ideals and they become concrete when societies commit to upholding them through laws, institutions, and shared effort. freedom of speech was once just an ideal too, until people fought to make it law and built systems to protect it. the same goes for healthcare.

0

Anonymous #2 3d

Nothing you have asserted follows. To begin with, my definition does not require any “universal acceptance” (appeal to majority), nor have you disproved in. Furthermore natural rights do not “depend” upon social duties, but are reinforced by (married to) them outside of the state of nature. You have no demonstrated why anyone would have a right to healthcare when not healthy (which would imply a right to health). The right to life includes preservation insofar as it is within your power

-1

Anonymous #2 3d

That does not demonstrate that it is a right with substance, nor did I deny universal character

-1

Anonymous #2 3d

This does not logically follow as an entailment. If “P” then “Q” (Material Implication). “Healthcare” beyond the power or faculties of an individual is not a natural right, as it is not proper to their being. The possession of rights and their exercise are also distinct. Nothing you have claimed follows logically from anything else you have claimed

-1

Anonymous #2 3d

Civil liberties and natural rights and ideals are distinct concepts. Freedom of speech is a right held within nature as logos for rational creatures is a faculty proper to their being. Reinforcement of a posses right and possession of said right are once again distinct. Nothing you have said follows logically

-1

Anonymous #1 2d

my argument does follow logically. if the right to life exists, it must include access to the means necessary to preserve life; healthcare is one of those means; therefore, the right to life entails a right to healthcare. that’s a valid inference. you can reject a premise if you want, but you can’t say “nothing follows” without misusing the concept of validity. all you’ve done is redefine “natural right” so narrowly that anything requiring social cooperation no longer counts.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

your own framework contradicts itself: it treats interdependence as both essential to human life and somehow disqualifying for human rights. you acknowledge that social duties “reinforce” natural rights, yet deny that those same duties can ground a right to something like healthcare. if cooperation and mutual obligation are natural to human beings, then it’s inconsistent to claim that a right becomes invalid simply because it depends on others. dependence isn’t contrary to human nature.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Natural rights are not dependent upon social cooperation in of themselves. They are secured by said political cooperation once an individual has left the “state of nature” (state of life outside of organized political society). Nothing has been redefined. Future more, preservation and possession are once again distinct. The right to life does not entail its preservation beyond the merit of any one individual This does not follow from anything else

1

Anonymous #2 2d

You aren’t consistent nor did you understand my argument. My argument hinges essentially on the distinction between human and natural rights, something you seem incapable of grasping. Furthermore, a natural right must be proper to one’s being, can you explain to me how healthcare fits this qualification? Yes social duties are married to rights “in political society”. Natural rights are not born of “political society”, there is no contradiction

1

Anonymous #1 2d

you’re still contradicting yourself. you say natural rights exist independently of social cooperation, yet admit that they are secured through it once individuals enter society. that admission already concedes that rights depend on social cooperation for their realization and protection. if something cannot exist in practice without social mechanisms to secure it, the cooperation is a necessary condition for the right’s meaningful existence.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

i’m not denying that distinction, i’m arguing that you’ve defined “proper to one’s being” too narrowly.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Hardly, natural rights must be reinforced by the instituted civil rights, otherwise the civil rights could not possibly be accepted by the political body. This much is commonsensical. Entering a political union for the purpose of better securing rights already in your possession, does not imply those rights only exist due to this association

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Proper to ones being has only one definition

1

Anonymous #1 2d

i’m not disputing that natural rights exist prior to political society. im in agreement that civil institutions don’t create rights; they secure them. the issue isn’t when rights come into existence, but what counts as one in the first place. saying that rights pre-exist society doesn’t tell us which specific rights qualify, that’s precisely what’s under discussion.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

if “proper to one’s being” had only one definition, philosophers wouldn’t still be arguing about what it entails. you’re asserting a single, exclusive definition without justification. what you actually mean is your preferred definition, that “proper to one’s being” refers only to what an individual can do alone. but that’s not self-evident, nor consistent with the broader natural-rights tradition

1

Anonymous #2 2d

What does this have to do with healthcare amounting merely to ideals? Rights have 3 aspects, Substance (via natural rights), Force (Civil Liberty) Opinion/Ideal (Human Rights). Healthcare is neither 1). Proper to being nor 2). “Property” in possession via one’s merit. Nothing provides substance to “healthcare” as a human right beyond mere idealism

1

Anonymous #1 2d

for example, aquinas defines what’s proper to our being includes both rationality and our embodied dependence on others. locke believes it includes the duty to preserve not just oneself but “the rest of mankind.” both explicitly treat sociability and preservation as natural, not accidental.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

A human being can do collectively also what is proper to being. It is not the case that, say, murder is proper to being despite the fact it may be done alone. You simply misunderstand me

1

Anonymous #1 2d

if substance comes from what’s “proper to being,” you still need to explain why the natural impulse toward preservation, care, and mutual aid is excluded from that category. human beings are both rational and embodied; our vulnerability and social interdependence are not accidental but essential. that means the preservation of life through cooperative care is as “proper to our being” as reason or speech.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Sociability is a property natural to one’s person, when did I ever deny this? This still does not entail a “right” or intrinsic claim to another’s faculties. Aquinas, Aristotle, Spinoza, Locke, and many other moral and political philosophers correctly assert rationality and human association as properties proper to being. The first line of the politics echos as much. This does not attack my position

1

Anonymous #2 2d

That would imply an intrinsic claim to the facilities of another, someone you are not “owed” in any sense. How is it proper to your being to lay claim to another’s faculties?

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Something*

1

Anonymous #1 2d

healthcare isn’t a claim to another’s “faculties” in the way slavery or coercion would be. it’s the institutional form of that natural duty to preserve life, the way political society organizes mutual preservation among equals. every civil right implies the use of others’ faculties: speech requires listeners; justice requires judges; property requires others to respect your claim. none of that negates the natural origin of those rights.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Social intercourse is proper to being, it is not the case that every potential outgrowth or outcome of that intercourse is. Healthcare is not a right (defined of course as access to medical facilities and professionals) as one is not entitled to such faculties. Collectivizing for the sake of mass slaughter similarly is not a right

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Speech requires no listener, justice is both social and yet has a personal component (giving to others their due, including yourself), property can be property of faculties (speech, etc) which require respect only to enforce, not to posses. Your examples do not hold. Furthermore, yes for healthcare to be proper to one’s being, they are owed it, and as such have a claim upon the faculty of another

1

Anonymous #1 2d

you’re right that not every collective action that arises from sociability is morally legitimate, the question is what direction sociability takes when ordered by the same natural law you’re invoking. aquinas, aristotle, and locke all agree that natural sociability is directed toward the preservation and flourishing of life, not its destruction. that’s why collective violence isn’t a right: it frustrates the very end of natural association.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Which once again, does not provide justification or substance for healthcare existing as a “right”. I am not obligated to surrender my capital by way of taxes to pay for your healthcare. A doctor owes you no care by virtue of an intrinsic claim you possess. Obviously natural collectivization is ordered towards preservation, this does not mandate “X” form of preservation or “Y”. One can argue mass slaughter preserves life at the exclusion of another’s life

1

Anonymous #1 2d

speech, justice, and property all rely on social recognition to exist as rights. speech may occur in isolation, but as a right it presupposes listeners who can respect or violate it. justice exists only within a community where individuals can receive what is due to them. property, whether material or of one’s own faculties, has meaning only when others acknowledge and respect one’s claim. rights function through mutual recognition.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

You have already moved away from the notion of possession of a proper faculty, and the exercise or protection of said faculty. Your argument does actually address anything I said. All you have done is fall upon civil recognition and completely abandon the natural rights aspect

1

Anonymous #1 2d

you’re conflating the moral basis of a right with the mechanism of its implementation. saying that a doctor is not personally “owed” or that taxation involves capital transfer does not refute the moral claim itself; it simply raises questions about how that claim is realized in political society. every natural right, once secured civilly, involves some collective contribution.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

and the analogy to “mass slaughter” fails entirely. natural law distinguishes between acts ordered to the preservation of life as such and acts that destroy life to benefit a few. one fulfills the moral end of preservation and the other violates it. healthcare directly preserves life and dignity without negating anyone’s natural rights, so it aligns with the very purpose of natural sociability.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

I am not morally obligated to preserve the life of another through taxes. There is no discussion of implementation here, the moral basis is non-existent. You have yet to show how the moral claim specifically to healthcare in anyway is justified by the political nature of a human being

1

Anonymous #1 2d

i’m applying it more consistently. the faculty proper to being that grounds healthcare is the same one that grounds the right to life—the natural impulse and capacity for self-preservation. when that preservation exceeds individual ability, reason and sociability, both proper to human nature, extend it through cooperative means. that’s the natural faculty expressed collectively, not a civil invention.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

It hardly does, because slaughter can be enacted to preserve the life of the many. Furthermore I fail to understand why you squeezed dignity in there.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

moral duty exists to preserve the life of another. in every major natural-law account, the same reason that grounds self-preservation grounds a proportional duty toward others. you are again confusing the mechanism of implementation and enforcement with the existence of the duty itself. the appeal to taxes doesn’t undermine the moral basis of the right.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

You are attempting to argue it can conceivably be morally justified to offer healthcare, a rather distinct argument from whether a natural right to such a thing exists. A natural right to life exists as it is proper to being to persist in that state yes, just as it is proper to enter political association for the sake of sufficiency and preservation yes. This does not provide substance to the specific institution of healthcare. Healthcare qua healthcare is not a “natural right”

1

Anonymous #2 2d

And how does this justify substance for the institution of healthcare qua healthcare as a natural right?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Furthermore, this moral duty is only extant within political associations, not within the state of nature. Such a duty arises from social intercourse, not the absence of political organization

1

Anonymous #1 2d

you’re separating moral justification and natural right more cleanly than the tradition you’re citing ever did. a natural right defines an end proper to human nature (in this case, the preservation of life) and moral reason identifies the means by which that end is achieved within the conditions of human existence. aquinas, locke, and the rest all treat the moral duty to preserve life as integral to the right itself; the right without the corresponding duty is empty.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

An “end”? Define your usage of the term. Things may be ordered to an end (preservation or sufficiency) but how does said end justify a right? Furthermore, you have yet to answer my question of the institution of healthcare in of itself, which is where the contention lies

1

Anonymous #1 2d

healthcare has substance as a natural right because it directly fulfills that pre-political moral duty once people act collectively. humans are by nature rational and social; therefore, when they organize politically, the means they choose to preserve life (medical care, sanitation, food security) are not arbitrary civil inventions but rational realizations of natural law. healthcare gives concrete form to the most basic natural end: preservation of life.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

And why must one finance the healthcare of another at their own detriment?

1

Anonymous #1 2d

by “end,” i mean what the classical and natural-law traditions call a final cause: the purpose or goal toward which a natural faculty is directed. for example, reason has truth as its end, and the faculty of self-preservation has the continuation of life as its end. within that framework, a right is the moral claim or protection that corresponds to a natural faculty in pursuit of its proper end.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Teleology then

1

Anonymous #1 2d

to answer your question, healthcare is the organized, rational means through which the natural faculty of self-preservation attains its end when individual power is insufficient. it’s not the institution itself that exists in the state of nature, but the natural end that gives rise to it once humans act politically. just as the faculty of reason gives rise to systems of justice and speech gives rise to civil liberty, the faculty of preservation gives rise to institutions of health and care.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

That did not answer my question.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

yes the framework i’m using is teleological: human faculties have natural ends, and moral order arises from acting in accordance with them.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Natural in the sense of “the end of the coming-to-be of a thing” as a Aristotle posits, I know

1

Anonymous #1 2d

it’s not a detriment. the obligation is not to sacrifice your life or livelihood for another’s but to contribute proportionally to the shared institutions that make preservation possible for all. taxation for healthcare functions no differently in principle from taxation for defense, courts, or public safety. each person yields a small portion of private means so that the political body can secure goods that protect the natural ends of everyone.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

That is a detriment, direct taxation in principle is a violation of natural rights (which is why the founders preferred indirect methods and soundly rejected direct taxation). The mandatory, forced, and punishable surrender or theft of one’s property is indeed a detriment

1

Anonymous #1 2d

and if we apply that teleology consistently, the human telos includes not only rational activity but also the preservation and flourishing of embodied life. because humans are by nature social animals, the fulfillment of that end occurs cooperatively.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

This once again fails to answer my question. You are positing an end that does not leave like advantage for others. I see no reason to agree to such an institution or manifestation

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Furthermore, the persistence of welfare deprives individuals of the requisite character required for republican society. That’s a rather large social detriment.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

sure, taxation can restrict individual possession, but restriction is not the same as violation. once people leave the state of nature and enter political association, they consent to contribute part of their property to secure the very rights that property represents. direct taxation becomes unjust only when it confiscates property for ends unrelated to the protection of natural rights. using collective resources for preservation is the rational fulfillment of the purpose for political society

1

Anonymous #1 2d

the end i’m positing does not deprive others of like advantage; it secures it. a right ordered toward preservation applies universally: each person stands both as potential beneficiary and participant. collective support for healthcare isn’t a privilege that benefits one at another’s expense but a reciprocal arrangement in which all preserve the conditions for life that make their own rights meaningful.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

They consent to surrender some of their rights, their personal merit and property was not given up. Collective society has only the aim of securing a safe framework in which all can exercise their faculties, or providing such means. That is a gross perversion of natural rights and their telos

1

Anonymous #1 2d

the formation of character and the preservation of life are not mutually exclusive ends. republican virtue presupposes citizens capable of exercising reason and participating in public life, which in turn presupposes that their basic needs and health are secure. the purpose of welfare or healthcare systems is not to remove responsibility but to maintain the minimum conditions under which responsibility and civic virtue can actually operate.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

That does Infact disadvantage individuals, which is why the nation (constructed upon natural rights) disavowed it with such force. The collective is under no obligation to offer you more than a protection of the natural rights (its purpose), which is to say a framework in which you can exercise your faculties. That is the aim looked at by all natural rights philosophers, not the state handing you what you have not merited

1

Anonymous #2 2d

“A heavy tax for the support of the poor…[yet]there is no country in the world in which are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent” A statement that rings true today. Time itself has disproved your very statement, one only needs to look at American society.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

the founders disavowed dependency, not preservation. they built institutions to secure life and liberty, understanding that the state’s legitimacy rests on its ability to maintain the ground on which those faculties stand. providing for the preservation of life through common means fulfills the aim of enabling each person to exercise reason and responsibility within a stable community.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

The preservation of life does not require state welfare, community assistance, church assistance, non-profit assistance. State welfare existing as the sole or even ideal end of “preservation” is nonsensical at best

1

Anonymous #1 2d

that’s ben franklin right? that remark was a critique of poor laws that rewarded idleness, not a rejection of the idea that society has any duty of care. his concern was how to structure assistance so that it cultivates virtue rather than undermines it. that remains a legitimate question of implementation, but it does not negate the moral basis for preserving life and health.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Welfare breed dependency, in case you have yet to notice.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

I responded to your justification of state run healthcare, which is hardly an ideal manifestation of anything. These “poor laws” you speak of are heavy taxation and state welfare, that is to say the very institution of healthcare we are discussing.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

i never claimed preservation of life required welfare alone. preservation is a moral end that can be realized through many channels: family, church, voluntary association, and, when those prove insufficient, through political institutions. the form of assistance can vary, but the duty itself remains. the point is not that the state must be the sole provider, but that it may legitimately participate in fulfilling a natural obligation when other means fail to meet it.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

No human, once again, has any natural claim to one’s labor or talent, which is why consent is required for political association. Once entering into an association, protection of faculties is granted, coercion or force to supplement the faculties of another is not

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Which is the point of contention. When one claims “healthcare is a right” they are claiming they have an intrinsic claim to state intervention when they do not. Nor are other forms of assistance ever considered in modern politics

1

Anonymous #2 2d

There is no “natural right” to any one manifestation of self preservation (which in this circumstance is no longer “self”)

1

Anonymous #1 2d

franklin’s warning is a lesson in prudence, not a refutation of the moral claim that organized care for health can be just. recognizing that a policy can be mismanaged does not make the underlying principle illegitimate. the existence of bad law doesn’t erase the moral grounding of law itself.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

To be just, one must be due this state assistance, and another must owe them this due. Neither is the case in state run welfare, why are you avoiding this

1

Anonymous #1 2d

the distinction between moral obligation and coercive possession is crucial: a duty to aid in preserving life, when freely entered into through political association, is not the same as being forced to serve another’s will. when individuals consent to form a political community, they consent to certain collective mechanisms like taxation, defense, public justice that use pooled resources to secure natural rights more effectively than any one person could alone.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

no one is “owed” another’s labor in the sense of ownership, but every member is owed the equal protection of the conditions that make natural rights usable. that is the political form of giving each their due. so, yes, in a rights-based republic citizens are due preservation within reason, and the community as a whole owes the structures that make that preservation possible. but don’t mistaken this as charity, it’s justice applied to the common good.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

No one consented to income taxes that is alive, nor did the founders of the association consent to that either. The collective self-preservation does not justify an involuntary surrender of property. Consent implies voluntary surrender, which is hardly the case.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Equal protection is grunted by virtue of existing in a collective that shares common morals and that can band together for protection. That does not make “healthcare”, “just” giving each their due implies what they are owed. No one is owed another’s labor, nor are they owed another’s capital beyond what is reasonable to maintain political society. State welfare is not reasonable to sustain political society. Mandatory healthcare insurance is not, trillions in welfare is not

1

Anonymous #1 2d

income tax is one of the mechanisms a modern state uses to fulfill the same function that earlier generations achieved through other forms of contribution. as long as taxation is lawfully enacted through representative processes and directed toward the preservation of natural rights, it is not an illegitimate seizure of property but part of the voluntary exchange that makes civil society possible. refusal to contribute while enjoying protections would break the consent that sustains a republic

1

Anonymous #2 2d

You are Infact aware that indirect taxation exists yes? Nor does this address the notion of the insufficiency, an unnecessary nature of state welfare

1

Anonymous #1 2d

equal protection arises from that shared moral order and the commitment to defend one another. if preservation of life is a founding purpose, then limited collective measures that secure basic health are within what is reasonable to sustain political society. this does not imply unlimited welfare or ownership of another’s labor.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

If it does not imply the last two, then healthcare as an institution as it currently exists should not and cannot exist. Furthermore, one can “provide” healthcare (like a hospital), they need not provide the payment for it as well. Society can set up institutions without also paying for its access for everyone, this is hardly necessary nor is it even possible

1

Anonymous #1 2d

yes, i’m aware that indirect taxation exists, and the distinction doesn’t change the principle. both direct and indirect forms are means by which a political community finances the protection of its members’ natural rights. the specific method is a question of policy, not of moral legitimacy.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

creating an institution without making it accessible defeats its purpose. a hospital that exists but cannot be used by those who need it fails the very end for the preservation of life. ensuring reasonable access is part of that end, just as maintaining courts or defense requires public support to function. this need not mean unlimited funding, only that the institution serve its natural purpose rather than exist in name alone.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

It can serve its function without ANY state funding. I’ll just ask this question; do you agree with the current condition of the welfare state in the USA under your framework? (The very same one that bankrupts hardworking individuals, utterly eradicates the required republican work ethic, and bankrupts the very same political collective that is supposed not only protect its current members but secure posterity)

1

Anonymous #1 2d

no, the current welfare state is unsustainable, and arguably it was built as such. recognizing a duty to preserve life doesn’t mean endorsing its present form. my framework allows for critique of excess and inefficiency while maintaining that some collective provision for basic health is legitimate. the problem isn’t the principle of shared preservation but the scale and structure that distort it.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

The current system, by bankrupting itself and diluting public virtue (with no mind to alternative support measures) fails to protect the majority of its constituents, failing its most basic duty. I’m sure that you can agree with this framing?

1

Anonymous #1 2d

well it’s built on open-ended entitlements and perpetual deficit spending that outpace the productive base supporting them. programs expand faster than revenue, and political incentives make retrenchment almost impossible, so each generation inherits larger obligations without matching resources. this design guarantees fiscal strain and long-term instability.

1

Anonymous #1 2d

and the thing about our current welfare system is its incentives reward expansion. politicians gain support by promising benefits while deferring costs, bureaucracies grow by serving more recipients, and private industries profit from managing the programs. each group benefits from continued growth, so they don’t have a reason to limit it. it’s a self-reinforcing cycle where short-term political and financial gains outweigh long-term stability.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

I am willing to concede then, the notion of self-preservation being an aim of political association (as it is), and of course (as our forefathers would agree) there is a need for a “minimal degree” of welfare for those truly disaffected (and who have no recourse to any other form of support). My main contention was centered with modern American welfare (including healthcare) in mind, trepidation arising from “rights” being used to justifying unlimited state assistance (as it so often is).

3

Anonymous #2 2d

If that is all, have a blessed day

4

Anonymous #1 2d

thank you, i truly appreciate your thoughtful engagement and respectful tone throughout this discussion. your points were well reasoned. it’s been a pleasure speaking with you and wishing you a blessed day as well.

5