Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23015)	2/17/2012 7:33:32 PM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What is immoral in a society is whatever the society considers to be immoral. If society consider (for example) slavery to be moral, that doesn't make it so. That a precedent has been established suggests that there is, at a minimum, a case to be made that it might be moral If your talking about a case that its moral to use contraception, then I agree. If your arguing that its ok to force people to pay for something that isn't vital, or a major natural interest than I disagree (if it does fall in those categories it becomes more complex), esp. if the imposition of the requirement goes beyond the powers constitutionally granted to the federal government. That's even more true when there is so little justification for the action. There is essentially no need for, and almost no benefit from, the requirement in question. The specific requirement deals only with people who have jobs with insurance, they would be able to afford contraception if they need it, and in fact will effectively be paying for it even if its covered, since insurance coverage is part of their compensation, and more extensive coverage (in the long run and as an overall average, not necessarily for every single person or in the very short run) leads to less compensation through wages/salaries, or non-health benefits.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23015)	2/18/2012 3:50:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"What’s immoral does not become moral simply by precedent." I question that statement. Thinking about it more, I'm not sure you do disagree with it. It would reasonable seem odd to argue with someone else about what they themselves think, but bear with me for a moment. Sure we still have our larger disagreement about meta-ethics, but I don't think this statement is really all that relevant to that point. It talks about morality not changing by precedent. A change in consensus of societies values is far more than just precedent. Even if you assume morality is purely subjective on the level of a society, a mere precedent wouldn't normally change that consensus societal moral view. If you assume rather that its subjective on the individual level, then the precedent often wouldn't broadly change it (although it might for some individuals), and in any case if morality is considered subjective on the individual level, than there isn't much to disagree with, his statement would be right for him, even if it didn't apply to you.