Forums - Politics Discussion - More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

Behold this latest Mitt Romney ad:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/09/romney-ad-hits-obama-for-war-on-religion/

 

If you follow liberal thought, which is based upon the foundation of individual rights, it would seem to be a clear case, if you will have nationwide health insurance system, that things like contraception are covered.  This issue isn't even one connected with abortion, and the arguing of the taking of human life, but contraception. Well, framed in this context, it seems to be obvious.  But then, it isn't. You run into the case of religious faith and people's religious rights.  In this the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception, and individuals of the faith, who choose to remain faithful to the teachings, end up arguing their religious beliefs are violated.  In short, you have one set of rights pitted against another.  And thus, you reach a flawed foundation of ethical systems based upon liberal thought, that being the case of rights being upheld and argued for.

I would be interested in seeing individuals who want to argue for rights-based ethical systems to be able to end up coming up with the best solution to this current issue regarding contraception and effectively argue that rights-based ethical systems can work.



Around the Network

It's easily solved by saying no one's rights have priority over any others, so your right to religious belief that contraception is wrong doesn't extend to stopping others' right to access contraception.

Religious rights are not special, they are a specific case to freedom of thought and speech, but that doesn't mean freedom of action or a right to dictate how things are going to be.



Seems pretty simple. Don't like Catholic rules? Don't work for or attend a Catholic institution. As long as the Catholic church isn't barging into your house and making off with all your contraception this isn't a matter of balancing rights, it's a matter of one group of people coercing another group into providing something against their wills.



Soleron said:
It's easily solved by saying no one's rights have priority over any others, so your right to religious belief that contraception is wrong doesn't extend to stopping others' right to access contraception.

Religious rights are not special, they are a specific case to freedom of thought and speech, but that doesn't mean freedom of action or a right to dictate how things are going to be.

The issue isn't that the Catholic Church is trying to ban insurance period for covering birth control, just that Catholic employers MUST provide it.  It goes from religious beliefs to property rights issues.  Do employers have a right to do what they want with their own property or not?

You can't take the easy way out by say no one's rights have priority over any other, because in this case, the issue requires one person's rights to have priority over another one.  And you ended up placing religious rights lower than other rights.



badgenome said:
Seems pretty simple. Don't like Catholic rules? Don't work for or attend a Catholic institution. As long as the Catholic church isn't barging into your house and making off with all your contraception this isn't a matter of balancing rights, it's a matter of one group of people coercing another group into providing something against their wills.

Catholic universities and organizations are exempt from this ruling.  What is not exempt is secular employers who want to be able to follow Catholic teaching, or possibly also other businesses run by the Catholic church.  



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:

Catholic universities and organizations are exempt from this ruling.  What is not exempt is secular employers who want to be able to follow Catholic teaching, or possibly also other businesses run by the Catholic church. 

They're not exempted. That was pure sleight of hand. All that happened is the insurance companies are going to be forced to offer "free" contraceptive coverage on all their plans instead offering it as an add on. So instead of Catholic employers having to check the box that says "contraceptive coverage", the choice has been done away with altogether.

And Catholic universities, etc., that self insure have to offer contraceptive coverage.



It's ultimately a moot point. We should have universal health coverage, and the gutless government is doing so in a way that happens to force religious institutions to betray some of their values.

The Obama Administration shouldn't be doing this, but the "why" of it has little to do with religion.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
It's ultimately a moot point. We should have universal health coverage, and the gutless government is doing so in a way that happens to force religious institutions to betray some of their values.

The Obama Administration shouldn't be doing this, but the "why" of it has little to do with religion.

Another example I could of used is how a homosexual activist forced a Christian film development studio to develop a promotional film for homosexuality, by means of the courts.  The activist argued they had a right to not be denied service, and pitted that said right against the owners of the company to say they didn't want to be involved with anything they saw as promoting sin.

EHarmony.com ran into another one.  They offered their service for heterosexuals only, as their market.  They were sued in court to require offering their matching services for homosexuals.  To placate these requirements, eharmony.com ended up setting up a separate service.  I know of eharmony, because Dr. Warren targeted his research at churches in the beginning.

Again, you see over and over what people considered rights in continual conflict with other people's rights.  And these rights end up individual or collectively.  The rights-based ethical systems don't provide any answers for prioritizing.



The existence of nationwide healthcare is already a violation of individual rights. Specifically, your right to the fruits of your labor (usually money) and the right to spend that money how you see fit. When you're forced through taxation or theft (but I repeat myself) to pay for someone else's healthcare, that's a violation of your property rights. Focusing on the issue of contraception is really missing the forest for the trees. There are no rights being pitted against each other, only two separate sets of rights being violated.


Also: What a way to come back to this site after almost a year. I really should learn to avoid controversial topics...



SmoothCriminal said:

The existence of nationwide healthcare is already a violation of individual rights. Specifically, your right to the fruits of your labor (usually money) and the right to spend that money how you see fit. When you're forced through taxation or theft (but I repeat myself) to pay for someone else's healthcare, that's a violation of your property rights. Focusing on the issue of contraception is really missing the forest for the trees. There are no rights being pitted against each other, only two separate sets of rights being violated.


Also: What a way to come back to this site after almost a year. I really should learn to avoid controversial topics...

If you are saying that rights are being pitted against each other, just both being violated, then explaing what you see these rights being violated are, and the optimal solution that causes neither to be violated.

The issue here is the issue regarding birth control.  That is what was discussed, and a focus around the Romney ad.  There ARE other situations which end up pitting rights against each other.   I could go and track those down, if you would want.  Or, you can argue that rights are NEVER pitted against one another at any time, which would be an interesting argument to read.