What is Morality?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:50 pm

Canadian healthcare works pretty well and most of us prefer it to a US-style system.

Yes, wait times for non-emergency procedures are long and growing, which is a consequence of our choice to ration these services through wait times rather than by willingness/ability to pay. It's a serious issue, but not an unresolvable one. Some provinces do a better job on this front than others. For the poor and unemployed, a long wait list is almost certainly preferable to an unaffordable bill.

There seems to be some confusion about how Canadian healthcare works. Healthcare is publicly funded but, outside of the hospital setting, most health services are provided by private firms (e.g., a doctor's private practice). Medical professionals in Canada have very clear financial incentives to take on as much work as possible and are not characteristically lazy.

Most importantly, Canada's health care system is currently much cheaper than the US system. In 2022, Canada spent 12.2% of GDP on healthcare, while the US spent 17.3%. For less $$$, Canada has longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, more doctor-patient interactions, etc., than the US. Our system doesn't push as many people into medical debt (though that can still happen). Many issues in Canada's system could probably be resolved with an additional 5% of GDP.

Canada's healthcare system is a prime example of the benefits of a blended system. Private provision preserves the incentives for healthcare professionals to work hard and seek efficiencies in their own practice. Public funding provides healthcare universally, encourages folks to go see their doctors before they develop serious illnesses, and gives the public bargaining power that reduces the cost of medical services and equipment.

Lastly, it's a fairer and more moral system. Healthcare is rationed by need, not ability to pay. Health outcomes are much more equitable across income lines. I suspect that if Jesus set up a healthcare system, it would look more like Canada's and less like the US's lol.

by **Ferdack** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 2:56 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:53 am

Wusti wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:03 am

Monopoly formation is not the only evil of a lightly regulated economy such as USA. The lack of care delivered to large portions of the populace, as evidenced by a tiny spend on welfare programs, the lack of universal entitlement to healthcare, the disparity of opportunity between socio-economic groups, and plenty of other ills.

and as far as healthcare, while I agree that it is far from perfect and that changes should be made, government over-regulation deincentivizes doctors to practice, leading to massive wait times...

You have severely misread Wusti's point, intentionally or unintentionally. Health care is far too expensive/inaccessible for most people in the US, and in this case, regulation means ensuring that costs and means of healthcare are affordable and accessible for the average person. I don't see how you've jumped to the conclusion that this leads to lazy doctors and longer wait times.

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:30 am
The policy matters little so long as the worldview of society is decrepit.

"Worldview" is a rather vague thing, isn't it? Policy, on the other hand, is concrete and produces tangible results, for good or bad. This claim is utter nonsense.

by **Wusti** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:12 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:30 am

Wusti wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:29 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:53 am
And I could talk just as extensively of the evils which have occurred due to Canada's regulation of such things. There are far more factors at play attributing to crime than the mixed economy...
Come on you can't say you can talk extensively about the evils of Canada's ills due to having higher government intervention, and then literally not state a single one, then go on to say there are more factors, then state none again.

Compare USA deaths due to poor healthcare to Canada or Australia's and there simply no comparison even on a per capita basis. If you think there is - please state your source.

Your statement, like many reeks of "belief" or "opinion" as opposed to fact. It is one thing to state an opinion citing facts you rely on to form it, it is quite another to state unsubstantiated opinions and expect people to go with you.
Notably, you have not given a single source for any of the claims you made.

Regardless, you missed my point entirely. The policy matters little so long as the worldview of society is decrepit.

Horseshit. Societal worldview as a reason to accept the status quo? God help this generation. I also note you failed to respond to the points I made "NO YOU" is not really a response is it?

by **CaptainFritz28** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:30 am

Wusti wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:29 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:53 am
And I could talk just as extensively of the evils which have occurred due to Canada's regulation of such things. There are far more factors at play attributing to crime than the mixed economy...
Come on you can't say you can talk extensively about the evils of Canada's ills due to having higher government intervention, and then literally not state a single one, then go on to say there are more factors, then state none again.

Compare USA deaths due to poor healthcare to Canada or Australia's and there simply no comparison even on a per capita basis. If you think there is - please state your source.

Your statement, like many reeks of "belief" or "opinion" as opposed to fact. It is one thing to state an opinion citing facts you rely on to form it, it is quite another to state unsubstantiated opinions and expect people to go with you.

Notably, you have not given a single source for any of the claims you made.

Regardless, you missed my point entirely. The policy matters little so long as the worldview of society is decrepit.

by **Wusti** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:29 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:53 am
And I could talk just as extensively of the evils which have occurred due to Canada's regulation of such things. There are far more factors at play attributing to crime than the mixed economy...

Come on you can't say you can talk extensively about the evils of Canada's ills due to having higher government intervention, and then literally not state a single one, then go on to say there are more factors, then state none again.

Compare USA deaths due to poor healthcare to Canada or Australia's and there simply no comparison even on a per capita basis. If you think there is - please state your source.

Your statement, like many reeks of "belief" or "opinion" as opposed to fact. It is one thing to state an opinion citing facts you rely on to form it, it is quite another to state unsubstantiated opinions and expect people to go with you.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:53 am

Wusti wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:03 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:37 pm
By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.
Monopoly formation is not the only evil of a lightly regulated economy such as USA. The lack of care delivered to large portions of the populace, as evidenced by a tiny spend on welfare programs, the lack of universal entitlement to healthcare, the disparity of opportunity between socio-economic groups, and plenty of other ills.

Aside from the USA's archaic gun laws, these ills directly to the massive incarceration rates and crime rates evidenced across your society. I would go as far as to say that the USA is the poster-boy for increased government intervention.

And I could talk just as extensively of the evils which have occurred due to Canada's regulation of such things. There are far more factors at play attributing to crime than the mixed economy, and as far as healthcare, while I agree that it is far from perfect and that changes should be made, government over-regulation deincentivizes doctors to practice, leading to massive wait times, oftern resulting in death, as we see in Canada.

The trouble is that you attribute every problem with a matter of the economy or policy, when in reality there is far more to it. Every policy is influenced by worldviews, and until the worldview of society can be corrected, any major change will be for the worse.

by **Wusti** » Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:03 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:37 pm
By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.

Monopoly formation is not the only evil of a lightly regulated economy such as USA. The lack of care delivered to large portions of the populace, as evidenced by a tiny spend on welfare programs, the lack of universal entitlement to healthcare, the disparity of opportunity between socio-economic groups, and plenty of other ills.

Aside from the USA's archaic gun laws, these ills directly to the massive incarceration rates and crime rates evidenced across your society. I would go as far as to say that the USA is the poster-boy for increased government intervention.

by **Hanging Rook** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 6:23 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:37 pm
By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.

According to Henry George private landownership is the mother of all monopolies.
Georgists even invented the game Monopoly to point this out.

For young generations it feels like coming to the game late and all to land is taken, and they say don’t worry you get our dice, we don’t need them, just give us a share of what you get every time you pass start.

Capitalism on the other hand is by name just the private ownership to capital.
And capital is the produce of labour to the support of labour. Somehow land rights and other monopoly sources got mixed up in it, maybe because most financial claims are on all three of this.

by **Hanging Rook** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:54 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:21 pm

Hanging Rook wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:52 am

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:05 pm
So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?
No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.
Isn's Georgism still a mixed economy? You'd be socializing one part of the economy (land rents) in exchange for liberalizing other parts of the economy (eliminating income taxes). If we (Western countries) went this route we would still have an economic system based on private enterprise and wealth accumulation, with some redistribution.

I agree it is the best of both- I just assumed with mixed most people think of regulating and taxing everything a bit or more

by **CaptainFritz28** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:37 pm

By mixed economy, I think those of us who believe it us most moral are not necessarily referring to its use currently, as much as its idea of being neither extreme of full capitalist or full socialist.

I believe that the government has a place in regulating the economy, but that that place is very limited, and should be restricted to the goal of ensuring that monopolies do not form, or that enterprising new businesses can grow easily in the face of such monopolies to create competition.

The best economy is one in which competition is necessary to ensure survival, meaning that each business works as hard as possible and does everything in their power to ensure quality of their products. The government owning businesses is just a monopoly, and unfettered capitalism allows for monopolies, so a mixed, albeit mostly free, market is the best.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:21 pm

Hanging Rook wrote: ↑
Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:52 am

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:05 pm
So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?
No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.

Isn's Georgism still a mixed economy? You'd be socializing one part of the economy (land rents) in exchange for liberalizing other parts of the economy (eliminating income taxes). If we (Western countries) went this route we would still have an economic system based on private enterprise and wealth accumulation, with some redistribution.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:25 pm

I would prefer an economy based on Georgism to the one we currently have. (And would agree that it would be more moral).

by **Hanging Rook** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 11:52 am

Crazy Anglican wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:05 pm
So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

No- the most moral economic system would be an economy based on (radical) Georgism.

by **DarthPorg36** » Tue Feb 20, 2024 12:01 am

I believe that is our consensus.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:05 pm

So, tentative and very vague agreement, the most moral economy in practice, is a mixed economy?

by **Wusti** » Sun Feb 18, 2024 9:46 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:56 pm
CA is right, I was not saying that Communism is the opposite to what the Bible teaches but that killing people unjustly is opposite to what the Bible teaches.

And yeah, unfettered just about anything is going to be bad, and that includes Capitalism.

OK fair enough - I misread it.

by **CaptainFritz28** » Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:56 pm

CA is right, I was not saying that Communism is the opposite to what the Bible teaches but that killing people unjustly is opposite to what the Bible teaches.

And yeah, unfettered just about anything is going to be bad, and that includes Capitalism.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:30 pm

Wusti wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 18, 2024 4:39 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:20 pm

Wusti wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:10 am

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.
On the contrary, the deaths caused by Communism are directly due to the teachings of it. I condemn the deaths caused in the name of Christianity just as much as anything else, but the fact of the matter is that it is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
Hahaha OK I'm not letting that one through - Communism is the opposite of what the bible teaches? Ahem - you need to go read some Karl Marx buddy. Give a proof please - not a random opinion - cite New Testament teachings that are actually opposite what Marx originally wrote please.

CaptFritz can certainly correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was arguing that Communism is the opposite of New Testament teachings. I believe his point was if a Christian were killing off large numbers of people [as communists have shown a propensity for doing] it is a safe bet that we can find a valid Biblically based response saying it is bad to do such a thing.

It might be his assertion that Marx's teaching cannot be used in the same way to condemn the bad acts of communists.

I'm sure CaptFritz will come along and elaborate, but it seems to me that you're missing his point.

Wusti wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 18, 2024 4:39 am
BTW Darthporg - thank you for your responses - its clear you have thought about the question and answered honestly. That's all anyone can ask. I don't have to agree with you, but I can certainly respect that.

well spoken.

Wusti wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 18, 2024 4:39 am
ON the issue of Communism, I am not a fan of the various implementations of Command economies in its name. The history is there for all to see.

true.

Wusti wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 18, 2024 4:39 am
Like Jamie I also think unfettered capitalism is easily as great a threat. I think the Nordics have the balance pretty darn right - modified capitalism, some call Socialism. Please don't throw the radical right blah blah BS about spending others peoples money at me. Capitalism requires modification to create sustainable, fair, egalitarian societies, of which I am a big fan, Education is a right not a privilege, Healthcare should be accessible to all based on need, not socio-economic status, etc etc.

Having said that, the question is about Morality. I'd say that unfettered Capitalism is every bit as immoral as Stalinism.

I don't think anyone actually made any claim about unfettered capitalism being superior to anything. Most people don't want ten-year-olds losing fingers in factory equipment, so mixed economies tend to be the best. The discussion is usuallly, "where is it best to land on the economic continuum between Free Market and Command Economy".

by **Wusti** » Sun Feb 18, 2024 4:39 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:20 pm

Wusti wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:10 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:05 am

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.
Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.
On the contrary, the deaths caused by Communism are directly due to the teachings of it. I condemn the deaths caused in the name of Christianity just as much as anything else, but the fact of the matter is that it is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.

Hahaha OK I'm not letting that one through - Communism is the opposite of what the bible teaches? Ahem - you need to go read some Karl Marx buddy. Give a proof please - not a random opinion - cite New Testament teachings that are actually opposite what Marx originally wrote please.

BTW Darthporg - thank you for your responses - its clear you have thought about the question and answered honestly. That's all anyone can ask. I don't have to agree with you, but I can certainly respect that.

ON the issue of Communism, I am not a fan of the various implementations of Command economies in its name. The history is there for all to see.

Like Jamie I also think unfettered capitalism is easily as great a threat. I think the Nordics have the balance pretty darn right - modified capitalism, some call Socialism. Please don't throw the radical right blah blah BS about spending others peoples money at me. Capitalism requires modification to create sustainable, fair, egalitarian societies, of which I am a big fan, Education is a right not a privilege, Healthcare should be accessible to all based on need, not socio-economic status, etc etc.

Having said that, the question is about Morality. I'd say that unfettered Capitalism is every bit as immoral as Stalinism.

by **Crazy Anglican** » Sat Feb 17, 2024 3:19 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 16, 2024 4:43 pm
There are other, better ways to argue for or against the merits of religion, markets, collectivization, etc. At a minimum, if this is a topic of interest, we should probably focus on actual cases to ensure it's not just strawmen on all sides.

Okay, how about Ko Dang (Cho Man Sik) vs. Kim Il Sung (and Juche)

Ko Dang was nick-named the Gandhi of Korea (and was a contemporary of Gandhi) for embracing nonviolent protest. He raised as under Confucian teaching but became a protestant Christian. Even so, he was favored as a potential leader of Korea by the Soviets (who repeatedly tried to influence him to allow Soviet Trusteeship- under the four powers trusteeship plan). When he wouldn't agree to that level of Soviet influence over Korea, he was imprisoned (where he continued to protest Soviet war crimes in occupied Korea). The Soviets turned to Kim Il-Sung as a potential leader in Korea. By this time the differences between the south and the north were so great that the Korean war began with the north invading the south. At that time and for years after the north was by far the more prosperous of the two. Cho Man Sik was reportedly executed along with 5,000 other prisoners when the communists fled Pyongyang.

KoDang was human and made mistakes, among them advocating for Korean students to join the Japanese Imperial Army. That opened the door for lots of Soviet propaganda painting him as a collaborator, which was successful in keeping him out of the vice-presidency of Korea. Still if he were able to gain more influence in the North it may very well have averted the Korean War and the entire Choson peninsula could have become as prosperous as the South is today.

Instead Kim Il-Sung was permitted to found what has become the Kim dynasty in North Korea. His philosophy of Juche (self reliance) is a communist one, and ironically named since the only time that North Korea has been more prosperous than South Korea has been when it was heavily subsidized by the USSR. Today, North Korea is in a terrible totalitarian state. This could have been avoided by putting the right man in power.

General Choi Hong Hi, the founder of the International Tae-Kwon-Do Federation, found himself in a tricky position in the 1990's in that he had more western black belt students than Koreans (his headquarters was in Canada at the time). Thus in an effort to recruit North Koreans (and suck up to Kim Il Sung) he changed the took the hyung (form/ kata) Ko-Dang out of the ITF's system and replaced it with the hyung Juche. For the reasons I've pointed out, my Taekwondo students learn Ko-Dang instead of the official one Juche.

What is Morality?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?

Re: What is Morality?