Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 September 9
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 8 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 10 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
September 9
editQuestion about moral argument
editOn forums (and sometimes even in real life) I see people argue that for those who join anti-lockdown protests, refuse to wear masks or deliberately reject vaccines, one logical punishment should be if they get the virus, they should be denied medical care (especially in countries where healthcare system is overwhelmed) or have to pay more for it (especially in countries where healthcare is normally free or heavily subsidised).
Is there a proper term for this moral argument? What are the main points for and against it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.107.21 (talk • contribs)
- Does the article Just-world hypothesis fit your needs? --Jayron32 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That article (or subject) seems to me to be conflating several different ideas or assumptions: i) that there is some sort of universal force or law of nature (God, Karma, Providence, etc) that ensures that the bad are punished and the good rewarded; ii) that society will ensure that the bad are punished and the good rewarded; iii) that people can contribute to their own misfortune; iv) that due to one of these other notions, if someone suffers misfortune it must be their fault/deserved. What the IP is talking about would I think be concept iii (and a bit of iv), with the additional argument that therefore they should be denied or delayed assistance. I don't know if this notion has a specific name, but I think its sufficiently distinct from the "karma" concept of a Just World that it should have a name. Iapetus (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, in colloquial English, a better concept may be "just deserts", See here or here. The word "deserts" is an archaic word meaning roughly "what one deserves" and is preserved in this idiom almost exclusively (you never see this sense of "deserts" at any other time). The word "just" here is also a slightly-archaic usage (with some modern usage) that is basically the adjectival form of "justice". --Jayron32 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just-world or even poetic justice seems more apt. The idiom fits to a tee i think, but in the context of desert (philosophy) wouldn't you have to ask what of those who joined protests, went mask-less, or not vaccinated and did not get the virus? fiveby(zero) 17:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, in colloquial English, a better concept may be "just deserts", See here or here. The word "deserts" is an archaic word meaning roughly "what one deserves" and is preserved in this idiom almost exclusively (you never see this sense of "deserts" at any other time). The word "just" here is also a slightly-archaic usage (with some modern usage) that is basically the adjectival form of "justice". --Jayron32 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That article (or subject) seems to me to be conflating several different ideas or assumptions: i) that there is some sort of universal force or law of nature (God, Karma, Providence, etc) that ensures that the bad are punished and the good rewarded; ii) that society will ensure that the bad are punished and the good rewarded; iii) that people can contribute to their own misfortune; iv) that due to one of these other notions, if someone suffers misfortune it must be their fault/deserved. What the IP is talking about would I think be concept iii (and a bit of iv), with the additional argument that therefore they should be denied or delayed assistance. I don't know if this notion has a specific name, but I think its sufficiently distinct from the "karma" concept of a Just World that it should have a name. Iapetus (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Does Karma fit the bill? DOR (HK) (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jayron32’s article seems a thorough discussion. For further reading: This idea of punishing people for their mistakes/ignorance/condition reminds me of making punitive hoops for people to get state financial assistance, for example. That led to the article workfare, which references a moral argument called “mutual obligation”. In workhouse, Crtl F for “insoluble dilemma” to read some discussion of Victorians not liking the idea that people considered less worthy could get as good (or better?) health care as others. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- A related idea is moral hazard, where people engage in more risky behavior if they don't bear the full cost of those risks. Refusing to provide medical care (or charging more) for people who refused to take coronavirus precautions could be a way to reduce or remove the moral hazard. --Amble (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Except that the target of those measures is a group of people who either believe that COVID-19 is a hoax or an exaggeration disseminated by the powers-that-be for some nefarious purpose. [1] Given they think that the virus poses no serious threat, they are unlikely to be worried by the prospect of not being treated for it. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Until they catch it, and then it's too late. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Except that the target of those measures is a group of people who either believe that COVID-19 is a hoax or an exaggeration disseminated by the powers-that-be for some nefarious purpose. [1] Given they think that the virus poses no serious threat, they are unlikely to be worried by the prospect of not being treated for it. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can't come up with a term for the argument, but I think this is in the general territory of The Servile State. When all the people are dependent on a single monolithic state institution, it becomes possible to coerce them into following a national strategy by withholding that privelege if they dissent, for their own good. Without this dependence in the first place, there would be no argument to make. The phrase "you've made your bed, now lie in it" is the best I can do when it comes to naming the argument. This would be a somewhat disingenous thing to say, though, since it implies the withholding of the privelege is a completely natural result of the person's own choice, and not an externally made decision. Card Zero (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you don't wear a seatbelt, or drive without a license, or not wear a mask on a plane, you'll be fined, right? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)