As I was writing the previous post I was reminded of a conversation I had with a guy at work recently. He said he felt that healthcare was a right and that government should give everyone free health care.
What first struck me about what he said bedsides the obvious “right” of healthcare was that he “felt” it was a right--not to mention the fact that this is confusing an opinion for a right. Feelings are not knowledge neither is having an emotion a method of acquiring knowledge. Only through the exercise of reason and logic can someone acquire knowledge.
Reason is a process of concept-formation and perceptual integration that identifies the true nature and attributes of reality. The method of reasoning is called logic. Logic is the process of non-contradictory identification.
After a short period of back and forth on the pros and cons of capitalism (which I’ll discuss in a later post), this person went on to say that the government doesn’t do enough to help people.
After I reminded him of what rights are guaranteed by law in the Constitution, and what such “new rights” do to the real rights of people, he said that my way of thinking is outdated and does not conform to today’s standards. He went on to say that the Constitution should be rewritten to reflect today’s society. He even said there should be a Constitutional Convention every ten years to make sure the Constitution keeps pace with changing societal mores.
This has got to be one of the most dangerous philosophies I have ever heard in terms of what the effect would be if this was attempted. Man’s rights would be dictated by majority opinion. The majority would get to decide what those rights were and who would get them and then be subject to change at the whims of a new majority opinion.
This is a perfect example of pragmatism. This philosophy contradicts the real rights of man and the pragmatism here is that one can oppose the moral principles of freedom and yet expect to always be free.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment