Wouldst thou blog that which thou esteem’st the ornament of life?

Hello and good morning.

It’s Thursday.

TTFN


Ha ha.  I’m just kidding.  It would be absurd for me to let you all off that easily.  Not that you don’t deserve to be let off easily; you probably do.  Whatever “deserve” means.

But it rarely matters in this world what you “deserve” or think that you deserve or have been told that you deserve.  Nature, physics, biology, the universe‒they don’t notice anything at all about what you might “deserve”.  They just do what they do, and if you don’t want to be ground into nothingness before your time, you’d better learn to surf on that chaos.

The notion of people deserving things has always been a bit strange to me.  It is nebulous and ill-considered in almost all situations.  What does it mean, for instance, for someone to deserve love?  How can you deserve something that is dependent on the judgment and emotion of another person or people?  You can’t have an innate right to another person’s esteem.

You can have a right, of sorts, to be left alone (as long as you’re not infringing other people’s rights) but not necessarily to be supported or admired or rewarded or what have you.

I suppose you can have a legal right, for instance, to health care (in principle), depending on the laws where you are.  But you can’t exactly have a moral right to it, because somebody‒a lot of people, really‒has to provide it, both the substance and the processes, the knowledge and the infrastructure.  You cannot morally own another person’s effort without a freely chosen mutual exchange for it.  Otherwise, you’re just enacting a form of slavery (which you’re only willing to do precisely because the service being provided is so important).  Think about the moral illogic there.

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve come to the pretty strong suspicion that “universal” healthcare is generally very good for a society.  It helps make the life of those in that society more stable and more worth living, and I think it tends to help people be more creative and productive, ceteris paribus.  And it can be made a legal right, as I said.

But it cannot be a moral right, and it’s important for people to remember that.  Because when people start feeling truly entitled, they tend to become unreasonable, forgetting that in the real universe, everything requires energy and effort and understanding, and there is always some tradeoff somewhere.

Again, I want to reiterate, I think universal healthcare is generally a good use of resources, one that has a sort of money multiplier effect on a society, at least when administered well (which is not a low bar to clear).  But, again, it cannot be a moral right.  It has to be paid for by somebody, somewhere.  You don’t have a moral right to a particular bridge being built, say, or to cable TV and internet access, or to a luxury car…or to any car at all, really.

How could people have an innate right to a car, for instance?  What would that mean for the billions and billions of people who lived before cars ever existed?  What about air travel?

Heck, what about space travel?  In the future, space travel might become necessary for most people to be able to work, rather as cars are in some places and situations now.  Will that imply that there is and has always been a moral right to space travel?  Have we all had our rights systematically thwarted by the tyranny of linear time and causality?  Whom do we sue?

I think we should dispense with the notion of “deserving” things in general, except specific performance or products for which one has paid through mutual, freely chosen exchange with someone else.  In other words, if you made a contract and you held up your end of the bargain, it makes sense to say that you deserve for the other party to hold up their end of the bargain.

Everywhere else, the notion of deserving things tends to be subjective and self-serving, and it tends to turn people into entitled assholes who appear to think of themselves as the center of the universe.

Of course, physically, each person is the center of their own visible universe.  Congratulations, you are experiencing the phenomenon of a 3-dimensional horizon.  It happens to us all.  You are not special.

Well, you are special in some senses, of course.  You have various specific, local aspects and attributes that are not exactly duplicated anywhere within our visible universe.  This makes you unique.  Which, ironically, makes you just like everybody else.

Dash was right; saying that everybody is special is just another way of saying that no one is.  And, in fact, except from the highly parochial, anthropocentric, myopic, terrified point of view of the typical human, no one is special‒not from “outside” anyway.

Still, it’s okay to think that the ones you love are truly the most wonderful people in the universe, because‒in the universe of your mind and experience‒they are.  Unless you don’t think they are, but that’s a different sort of problem.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with the concept of “deserving” things is that it is a powerful impediment to feelings of gratitude.  And that’s pretty pathetic, both for those around the ungrateful ones and for the ungrateful ones themselves.  If you think you’re entitled to many things, you’re likely to be miserable, because you’re unlikely to get all those things to which you feel entitled, and you’ll be prone to make the people around you miserable, too.

You don’t deserve to read my blog.  And I don’t deserve to have you read it, nor to have you like and share it (as in my song, below).  But I am grateful that you are reading, and would be pleased if you decided to spread it around.  I am lucky to have any good things at all, as are all people who have good things.

And now, for real this time:

TTFN

4 thoughts on “Wouldst thou blog that which thou esteem’st the ornament of life?”

  1. It’s interesting that you think universal healthcare could/should be a legal right though you say it’s not a moral right. In that case, the government would be “enslaving” medical providers by forcing them to provide services for no other reason than the providers would face some penalty if they didn’t. You could then make the Ayn Rand-ian argument that such a scheme is immoral, which carries a lot of weight with people, especially in capitalist/individualist countries like the US. (Although of course in her ailing old age, Ms Rand infamously claimed Social Security and Medicare, which really she should abhor since they are products of “socialism.”)

    But if you say universal health care is both a legal and moral right, then there is no contradiction. The moral right would spring from the duty of care that the government (in theory by the people and for the people) has towards all its citizens (not just the wealthy ones). I understand your argument about “entitlement” but that doesn’t abrogate the duty of care just because some people might develop a bad/demanding attitude.

    Anyway, just my random thoughts.

    • No, it wouldn’t be that the government would be enslaving anyone. They would be paying them. They would probably also subsidize training, which they do anyway. This is no more immoral than paying for fire departments or police departments or garbage men. It IS a logistical issue, of course–and it’s not easy to do it well. That’s a reasonable exchange, and of course, people who don’t want to work for the NHS (or whatever) can go into private practice if they want. Again, it cannot be that anyone is morally entitled to their care, but they can be contractually entitled, whether by virtue of the taxpayer funded program or insurance or direct pay or whatever. I maintain that no one can possibly have a moral right to anything that requires other people’s effort or property or whatever. Legal rights might best be thought of as privileges, and that might encourage the making of better, more practical decisions. Now, the government CAN have obligations to the people. of course. and its only valid reason for existence is to secure their rights.

  2. I haven’t got anything profound to add to this, but since you took the time to write and post it and are allowing us to read it for free, I thought I would at least let you know that this exchange got me thinking about–and reviewing–the social contract, the confusion that sometimes arises for people between morals and ethics, and the Hippocratic oath. Thanks for waking up my brain.

Leave a Reply