What seemed to be the matter unaddressed in class was what your role is as a person in society is. In the transplant case, many would argue that it's your role to provide for the sick, the weak, the poor, who cannot afford premium healthcare which might cover their expenses. An argument came up that if people would simply get taxed more, we'd be able to fund everything. I can't remember who brought it up, but they said that in Sweden, people don't mind paying tons in taxes because they feel that they that is their obligation. In America, we do not have an obligation of sorts, and to counter the statement that Bridget made I think, we ARE trapped in our own bubbles. That is American life.
The thing that bugs me about this, is that depending on the society you live in, you are expected to act a certain way. These are cultural norms, and I'm not saying that it necessarily justifies it, but unless you want to change society, you will not change the self-centered mindset of Americans. So what is ethically right? A response might be that your role in society depends on your government's role. If the government is truly trying to make the lives of everyone better by raising the poverty line, then I would think it be ethical to assume that you should do your best to help this cause. However, if the government cannot alter the system in a way that attempts to do this, why should you have to pick of the slack for the government's shortcomings?
Looking at this from a Rawlsian perspective is interesting, and even though it's impossible to be in the original position and the veil of ignorance is not completely perfect and unbiased, we can still reach some sort of conclusion. An assumed stance to take in this case would be to have everyone earn the same amount and thus they could all be eligable if they all contribute to the fund. A common problem with this scenario is that there is no motivation to work in society if everyone gets paid the same. I think a viable solution, however, was one that was mentioned in class. With perhaps the exception of the extremely and overly wealth individuals getting such high salaries, I'd say keep society as it is now, and then appropriately tax people based on income. (Just so there is no confusion, the wealthy get taxed a lot, and the poor get taxed a little) In this case, it seems that it makes room for motivation and allows for a viable health system. However, the harsh reality of things is that Arizona is very conservative, and thus does not support many tax increases.
I thought it was interesting to see all of the pull for universal healthcare in class. It might have seemed like I am opposed to it, but in reality I am not. It just seems hard to believe that our government will attempt to make it work and if our government doesn't attempt to change the way it runs in order to create such a system, why should I be the one putting my time and effort into it. And who is to blame for this? (Dirty hands oh no!) Should we blame ourselves for not electing officials who would support such a system, or the officials themselves, or the whole system of governance? It's just hard to think that we can all of the sudden fix this problem and start a universal healthcare system, and that's why I have my reservations about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that the question of what the individuals role in society is a very crucial question and that it is often based on cultural norms but I also think it must be based on hopeful ideas of what our society could be and ought to be. I think that it is important that we try and strive for normative morals. I think that is why I try and do my best to be as beneficial to our society as i can. If we all take on this point of view how bad could that be? Societal culture is alterable. Is it really that much of a sacrifice to do something that could help someone else or even the society as a whole? Thats why when talking about the possibility of universal health care, i think its better to focus on not whether is seems like right now we could really get it but to be hopeful and still try. Because there maybe be other people and influences out there that are thinking the same thing and together you can make a difference. I mean if enough people want universal health care, we can get it. It is something that a lot of people have been thinking about lately. I think it is important to remain hopeful.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think you made an interesting point during this class that I never got to respond to. It was the point that we shouldn't be coerced into spending our tax dollars on sick peoples transplants. To respond to that I wanted to say that we are often times coerced into paying for things we don't support (ie the war on iraq) yet out of all the things like wars and subsidies to large corporations that our taxes could go to, helping fellow citizens out is one of the more important things we could do with our money.