There are things we just instinctively know. Human life is valuable and should be preserved. That is something I instinctively know. But wait. There are those who “instinctively” know that human life does not have value unless that life is giving something of value back to society. So they instinctively know that society (the state) has intrinsic value. Human life only has value when and if that life provides benefit to the state.
Does this beg the question of who decides what is valuable? The “state” decides I suppose, in some bureaucratic form. Has not history shown this progression of deciding value, if and when society in general is valued above the individual?
So are humans exceptional or not? Here is a view from Dave Niose, President of the American Humanist Association, the USA's oldest and largest humanist organization. Maybe our views on the uniqueness of humanity is not instinctive and maybe it comes from a mix of culture, religion, education, and self-serving ambition, etc. Whatever the source, man’s views on human uniqueness run a full spectrum.
We see increasing pressure on human uniqueness. In the Matrix movie Agent Smith while interrogating Morpheus describes humans as a virus. "You are a plague, and we are the cure," proclaims Agent Smith. We clearly see this in Mr. Niose’ thinking. The increasing meme of humans destroying and using up the planet at intolerable rates is intense and extreme. This is simply a variant of the human animal paradigm.
Our good old USA has been dominated to this point by beliefs tending toward the uniqueness of humanity in comparison to all other life on planet earth. So Grandma has value even though she can not remember your name. But there is increasing pressure from the “man is just another animal” factions. Many see the current President/Czar/Pelosi-Congress as leaning more toward the “were just animals” side of things. This has become a central issue to the healthcare debate. An interesting blog on these issues is Second Hand Smoke.
I see another “we instinctively know” disagreement in the healthcare debate. How does a society pay for unlimited healthcare for all. The short answer, as we have seen and heard, is we can not. That brings in the rationing debate with all the “we must cut something” language from both sides. Why are both sides needing to talk about cuts? Because neither side dares take a Capitalist position. Can Trickle Down Economics work even with healthcare. This is something I instinctively believe. When the economic engine is running full steam, enough money and value is created in society that a majority of people benefit. When the capitalist economic engine of healthcare is chugging down the track we have advancements, discoveries, value and personnel aplenty. And all this trickling down in diverse and unequal ways.
Are there people who do not benefit? I would ague no. Everyone benefits. But there is inequality. Some benefit more than others. So here is the rub. If your “instincts” are such that economic and social equality is achievable, then you will see this trickle down structure as inadequate. Nothing will suffice but total and complete sameness. Oddly enough those in a position of power, those who decide, are always on some different benefit delivery track – Animal Farm all over again.
Healthcare is simply the ever popular boogie man for the communist/socialist/utopians to advance their collective agendas. Sure there are serious and concerned people on all sides of this issue. But the driving force is utopian collectivism. When has that ever worked? Please say Cuba, come on – I dare you.
Here is an interesting podcast interview with Wesley J. Smith from Second Hand Smoke.