If an individual opposes the current health care reform legislation under consideration by the US Senate, is that person denying the moral argument that can be made for some level of basic care for human persons?
To begin, it should be admitted that the intentions of various opponents of health care reform legislation are diverse. Undoubtedly, there are some who oppose the reform of health care or health insurance for entirely selfish, and perhaps even sinister, reasons. If the moral argument for health care reform is sound, then these persons' opposition is indeed immoral. But by no means should we throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Perhaps, just maybe, the opposition to current health care reform legislation resists overly general pronouncements and stereotypes.
As a concrete example, we might consider the remarks made by Harry Reid, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'" (Fox News)
Reid's argument here seems to be that if you oppose or at least try to slow down the implementation of current sweeping legislation aimed at reforming health care, then you are like those who tried to resist recognizing the wrongs of slavery. The underlying assumed premise is that those who opposed recognizing the wrong of slavery were immoral and wrong themselves. Therefore, according to Reid's argument, to the extent that opponents of the current health care reform legislation bear an analogous relation to those that resisted recognizing the wrongs of slavery, then they share in their immoral and wrong behavior.
The problem with Reid's argument is not in saying that those who resisted recognizing the evils of slavery were immoral and wrong, but rather, whether in fact his initial analogy can hold up, because that is the crucial point of his argument.
What Senator Reid appears to have made the mistake in doing is assuming that to oppose the current legislation addressing health care reform amounts to opposing health care reform altogether. He has made the legislation itself synonymous with the moral impetus for health care reform. But this is a false inference.
An example might help here. Imagine young Tommy who has been taught by his parents that he has a moral duty to help his neighbor when he has the means to do so. Tommy, reflects on this moral maxim, and resolves the next day to help the elderly woman, who is frequently sick and lives next door, to move some paint cans that he saw her struggling with recently out to the trash, and thus eliminate a chore for her. But in the midst of his "helpful" deed, Tommy spills paint all over the back yard and driveway, as he sloppily carried the cans. The elderly woman now has more work to do, as Tommy failed to clean up his mess.
In this example, Tommy's intentions are in line with honoring the moral maxim his parents taught him, but his actual practice of the moral maxim fails in substantial measure. Tommy's parents may accordingly call Tommy in and offer some constructive feedback, and suggest alternative practices in the future. By critiquing Tommy's actions, do his parents reject the moral maxim that Tommy sought to implement? By no means, rather it is because they believe in the good of the moral maxim that they want to see Tommy implement it in a way that respects its nature and goals.
We can carry the point over to Senator Reid, and other politicians, who have suggested that opposing current legislation regarding health care reform is morally wrong or evil, on level with those that sought to deny recognition of the evils of slavery. Reid, et al, wrongly assume that the implementation of a moral maxim is the moral maxim itself, and accordingly fail to see that the moral maxim is a general form, of which various concrete actions can come closer to or further from implementing. In our example, Tommy's parents in offering him constructive feedback about how he implements his moral duties did not seek to deny the moral maxim itself, but rather to inspire their son to more effectively enact the moral maxim in his daily life. Among the opponents of the current legislation regarding health care reform, there are likely those that assume something like the role of Tommy's parents. They recognize the moral urgency to provide some level of health care to all persons and reform the current system of health care, but disagree with how some of the politicians are attempting to implement that moral maxim in current legislation. Such opposition should not be confused as being immoral. In fact, such critique may be, in fact, morally praiseworthy in that it strives to more effectively embody the moral duty or ideal.
To return to our initial question, if an individual opposes the current health care reform legislation under consideration by the US Senate, is that person denying the moral argument that can be made for some level of basic care for human persons? Our answer ought to be, not necessarily. There are some critics of current legislation that precisely because they do recognize the moral argument for universal health care and health care reform reject current legislation as an inadequate attempt to embody the ideal that the moral argument sets forth. Far from being moral degenerates, such critics are morally praiseworthy insofar as they call us to a higher standard, wherein we can more faithfully discharge our moral duties.
0 comments:
Post a Comment