Curing the Ill – Should We?

There will always be the sick among us and it is a basic premise of ethical and religious systems that it is our responsibility to care for them and, where possible, to cure them. Even ignoring morality and focusing on self-interest, most people would be willing to expend the resources necessary to care for others in exchange for the guarantee that they will, themselves, receive such care when they are sick. It's likely, however, that they would express their support of the concept of caring for the ill in moral and ideological terms rather than self-interest.

While there have been, from time to time, some who would leave their sick and disabled on the side of the mountain to die, this has been viewed, by and large, as an aberration, and most civilized societies make health care a high priority. We see provision for the needs of those less able than ourselves as an obligation which is not lightly disregarded. In this country there is a sophisticated mix of medical and social programs which are addressed at these needs. In the medical field they involve private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, “Obamacare,” as well as some institutions supported by governmental funds to provide service for those not otherwise covered. While it would not be accurate to suggest that the level of care is equal for all of our citizens and non-citizen residents (including undocumented aliens), the means exist for provision of some service for everyone.

That condition, however, does not always obtain. Situations can arise in which providers are forced to "ration" care by one system or another in order to function in a satisfactory manner. The paradigm of this situation is the triaging which takes place at the time of a disaster or a military engagement, when the number of individuals requiring attention is greater than can be handled by the system. At such a time a sorting of patients is made according to preset guidelines to determine who is in greatest need of attention or who is most likely to benefit from it. Those who do not meet these criteria would only be seen when, and if, resources later become available.

And there isn't unanimous opinion that tax money is the appropriate source for the costs of medical care – especially terminal care. Notwithstanding the moral strictures, they feel that people should pay for their own medical care, either directly or by the use of private insurance. Some acknowledge the inability of the poor to afford such care, yet many would deny them public funds to get it. They view such as charity, and maintain that charity is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.

It has, however, become a “given” that health care is a right. It's not explicitly in the Constitution, but our nation – indeed, many nations – consider it a state responsibility to ensure the health of all those living within their boundaries, whether or not they are citizens. It is decreed by medical ethicists and accepted by those on both the left and right (though with different degrees of enthusiasm) that some form of guaranteed care be available to all. The Republican Party assures us all that they'll repeal Obamacare and replace it with a “better” version of health insurance. Even they agree that some plan is necessary. (I don't know if, by the time this is published, changes will have been made.)

But is it? Would the knowledge that each of us is responsible for his own health care, and the government won't pick up the tab for those on welfare, help to encourage some of those who aren't doing so already to seek employment? Similarly they reject care for those here illegally. And those who are interested in the most efficacious use of health care dollars and other resources may consider it reasonable to deny care to those either deemed “unfit” or unsalvageable.” Another group that might approve are those who (secretly) might want to “pull the plug” on suffering family members, but would feel guilty if forced to make the decision themselves. I personally don't subscribe to all of those ideas, but we're burying our heads if we don't recognize that they exist.

I won't be subtle or deceptive. I want to be sure that, when the time comes, I receive the best available care. I've been paying for it and I want it. Ideally it should come from my own funds and insurance, or be provided by charity. However I don't trust my fellow man to care about anyone but himself, so, if the “crunch” should ever come, I'd rather rely on the government. Not that I trust the government and politicians. I don't. But I know that the prime goal of politicians is to be elected, so they'll do everything they can to guarantee the safety and health of their constituents. They care about themselves, so they care about me and every other voter. They're sure to vote for health care – especially since the voters will wind up paying for it.

It's not a matter of curing the ill. But they want to be elected and I want to be cured. Whether my life is worth anything to others – whether the use of medical resources on me would be justified in their eyes – I agree that it is society's obligation to care for the ill. Especially me.

March 5, 2017

Society And The Rest Of Us

I started this essay between six and seven years ago, but I never finished it. The time has come, even though the slant now may be different from what I originally intended. I've edited it to conform to my current philosophy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone repeats the same sentence several times. He is getting older and his children are tired of hearing him. What's to be done? Perhaps the affliction is pathological and requires a remedy.

A man goes around the room straightening every picture – some only a millimeter or two off his mark. He has obsessive-compulsive disorder. It clearly abnormal. Everyone agrees he needs to be treated.

A child looks out the window every time a teacher starts speaking. It must be attention-deficit disorder. Such a problem is clearly detrimental, and the proper medicines and counseling must be instituted to alter this behavior.

A woman talks incessantly, not leaving an opening for anyone else to talk, and apparently unaware of what anyone else has to say. Though irritating, it's normal and requires no professional intervention, although someone may say something.

No, this isn't a misogynistic or any other type of rant. My target, rather, is the way we set standards of what is normal and what isn't. I'm a little put out by the way we decide what falls outside the range of the acceptable, in speech and in behavior, and what we should – or is it what we can – tolerate. I'm concerned because I view our standards as being based on politics or some kind of imagined correctness and not on any objective criteria.

Let me give an example: A “pin-up” calendar in a men's locker room would be viewed as provocative and unacceptable, while lush wallpaper in a ladies' lounge, wallpaper that includes images of virile Greek gods, would not merit mention. How this attitude entered our society isn't clear, but there are many men, in addition to women, who agree with the view. Somewhere along the line society has conditioned us as to what's acceptable and what's not.

So our comfort is what counts, and the man with OCD needs treatment because it's bothersome to others – not necessarily to himself. And it's easier to diagnose a child as having ADD, and possibly put him on drugs, than to look for any other reason for his behavior. Perhaps the elderly individual who cannot remember what he said would benefit from therapy, but the problem is most striking to the listener, not to the one repeating himself – though he may be judged by the courts to be incapable of making decisions and forced to undergo therapy that others choose.

Most of the problems for which we have devised solutions derive from what society has taught us. And society's dictates vary from time to time. To the point that we no longer accept the Constitution of our country as it was written. Extensive interpretation is necessary. Free speech is nice unless it offends someone. And if it bothers someone we've designated as a member of an “oppressed” group it may constitute hate speech. “This is your punishment for deviating from the Bible. I pray that you are forgiven.” Though the speaker may sincerely wish for the benefit of the person he is addressing, said to a homosexual it constitutes deplorable hate speech. The concepts of free speech and freedom of religion, and religious views, are less important than the feelings of the listener. (Often it is a non-involved party whom it offends more than the one to whom it was directed. No one will find it offensive if somebody accuses you of being a gun supporter, though it may be accompanied) by more hate than the biblical remark.)

And words that were perfectly acceptable in the past are no longer to be used. Euphemisms must be substituted. A child who was once said to be retarded is now “special.” But if everyone knows what the euphemisms mean, they're no different from the words they replace. Except to the “sensitive” among us. Meanwhile other words, anatomical designations or expletives once forbidden in public discourse, are used freely and without disapproval.

There's no solution to the problem. Some people will insist that only the way they speak is acceptable, and those who disagree should be silenced. But, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Or, in the words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The freedom to express ourselves any way we want is paramount (although those who see their nation's flag burned, or who see Nazis protected by the government while marching through the streets may want their representatives to revisit the issue). And our behavior as well. Forcing us to obey the rules of the intolerant is contrary to any ideas of freedom. Making us fit into societal norms is tyranny.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I said then, and I still believe that what we say and what we do (as long as we're not physically harming others) is our own business and should be protected by society, not controlled by it. Limitations on free speech are only rarely justified, and such action should be taken only after careful consideration of the consequences. As for forced, or pressured, therapy, we went through the tragedy of eugenics early in the last century, and we should know by now that no one should be treated for any real or imagined disease unless he chooses to be.

The United States was founded with the intent of offering freedom. Destroying that freedom in order to soothe the majority must not be tolerated.






February 9, 2017

Hoffer 4

More from Eric Hoffer. If you don't like his aphorisms as I do, skip this. As before, I've added comments to many of them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rabid suspicion has nothing in it of skepticism. The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I'm one of those who believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person. I guess I'm suspicious. In reality, however, suspicion has nothing to do with it. There is evil every person, and it often comes out.

Conservatism is sometimes a symptom or sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted.  I must admit to being a conservative. I picked up sterile radical ideas in my youth, but I let go of them. My ideas have grown and developed.

Those who proclaim the brotherhood of men fight every war as if it were a civil war. Nowadays it's protest and riot.

The hardest thing to cope with is not selfishness or vanity or deceitfulness, but sheer stupidity. One needs the talents of an animal trainer to deal with the stupid.

The passionate are not as a rule culturally creative, but only they make history.

Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth. Actually what it yields in the modern world is accusations and negative appraisals of anyone you don't like.

The true prophet is not he who peers into the future but he who reads and reveals the present. Or pays attention to opinion polls and focus groups. The prophet, today, sees where we are going then runs to the front to lead.

Fear and freedom are mutually exclusive.

To the old, the new is usually bad news. The old are smarter than the rest of us.

America has never ceased to be an experiment. In every generation America has still to prove that a society founded on values cherished by common people can endure, and that it is possible to fuse hordes of heterogeneous immigrants into one nation indivisible.

     [Achievement is largely the product of steadily raising one's levels of aspiration and expectation. (Jack Nicklaus)] It applies to all of society, not just sports.

Everyone expects 1975 [this was written early in 1975] to be a year of decision for the Occident, My fear is that it will be a year of protracted crisis. It is the lingering crisis that debilitates. An explosion would cleanse the air. I would welcome a blowing up of the oil wells in the Persian Gulf. A dramatic end of the fossil-fuel age could be an opening act in the renewal and rebirth of the Occident. The balance of century should be devoted to the search for cheaper and cleaner fuels. In the meantime the Occident should adopt a simpler and slower mode of life and use its manpower in a concerted effort to cleanse and water of pollution, replenish the soil, reforest the hills, and clean up the cities.

Who in the 1950s had a premonition of the witches' sabbath that would be enacted in the 1960s? Once events have taken place, a horde of commentators demonstrate that the unexpected was inevitable. Actually, chance stupidity and cowardice were chief factors. Nothing was inevitable. As I said earlier, evil, as well as stupidity, is lurking in everyone.

To give equality to people who cannot be equal is to intensify their feeling of inequality. So too to give freedom to people who cannot help themselves is to increase their feeling of oppression, Moreover, to give freedom and equality to people who cannot help themselves is to rob them of soul-soothing alibis.

Old age has made me common. I have the typical aches and predicaments of the old. It is true that my nose is not dripping when my head nods in drowsiness and I manage to keep the corners of my mouth clean.

       It is good to remind myself that it is by sheer wild luck that I have in my old age enough money to live on and no money worries at all. So far I have no misfortunes, and at seventy-three I feel that I have won the race. It is true that I am easy on myself. I have a right to an unstrenuous old age. But it must be free of boredom and a feeling of stagnation. This means that I must go on thinking, learning and writing. All I can allow myself is a slower tempo. Mostly this describes me.

The birth of the nineteenth century: the prelude to this most stable and peaceful century was a massive hemorrhage, a twenty-year war. We cannot blame war for the demented savagery of the twentieth century. It is legitimate to wonder whether the nineteenth century would have become what it was had the French come out of the Napoleonic wars as conquerors. The reason the First World War did not wind up the way other wars (including the Second World War) did was that France wanted to be the foremost nation in Europe and would not leave Germany alone. Vive la France. It could use help before it destroys itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More to come, sooner or later.

Prometheus Bound

                                                                                             

Aeschylus bound him,ⁱ but Shelleyⁱⁱ cut him loose. In both cases they were alluding to physical binding and to the “crime” of bringing fire to mankind. Fire can be both an important aid to humanity, and a terrible danger. Fire is a two-edged sword – like so many of our treasures. The forest fire so feared by everyone can clear away the old dead brush and trees, leaving room for new growth. But there is much room for disagreement about fire's value and its risks, as well as about the way it was obtained. So, although Prometheus thought that stealing fire and bringing it to humanity was worth the risk, both binding and setting loose are understandable payments for Prometheus's enterprise.

But binding is not always a physical act. Less visible, while possibly more hindering, are the bounds set by society – those that limit what one can think or say or do. In the wild state, there are no external bounds set on what an animal does except, perhaps, fear of the consequences of our actions. An animal may set the boundaries of the territory that he will defend. The “State of Nature” is outside of society.ⁱⁱⁱ There is anarchy, and survival depends upon brains and brawn. Morality is not an issue.

Within a society, however, risk is largely mitigated at the cost of some of the freedom of action that exists outside; survival, stability, and security increase as anarchy is eliminated. There is law – not the “law of the jungle,” but man-made statutes for which we are all accountable. We are bound by the words of the law and of precedents, even if we had no say in their establishment. A government has been established to supervise and protect the lives and property of those in its jurisdiction.

But who set up that government? And what if we disagree with some of the rules they established? To what degree do those who preceded us speak for us? Whatever happened to Democracy?

Unfortunately we cannot relive the past. We have to live by it. Or maybe it's “fortunately.” Society^iv was instituted to protect us from each other, and to set the rules by which we live. We need laws to guide our actions. Those laws may have been made by those who preceded us and who, in that sense, speak for us. At least they speak for us as long as the laws last. It is a basic tenet of democracy that although we are bound by the decisions of the past, they are changeable – either by a modification in the understanding of what those decisions mean, or by absolute change in the law arrived at through an orderly, democratic, process. And we always have. We accept the constraints of international law (to some degree, at least), and of parental control and responsibility for infants, and of proxies in a variety of situations. From time to time the rules may have to change, but that is in our power. 

Our founding document, the Constitution, contains mechanisms for change and, within a year of its adoption, the process of amendment had already begun. The criteria for constitutional change, either by further amendment or by convention, are stiff – perhaps too stiff – but the Founding Fathers established the rules of the game and the states accepted them. And we're bound by them. 

 

That's the way rules work. It's the same if they are the rules of a game, an organization, or a government. For better or worse, it's also a pattern of human behavior and that may be the reason we accept it so willingly. We feel ourselves bound by the oaths we take, the promises we make, and by appointments.^v “That's the way we've always done it” seems to be justification enough for a rule. It's comfortable. Any deviation from what we've always done requires good justification. In the interim we yield to the ones who made the rules.

That's the weakness of the system though. We defer to the judgments of men^vi who may not be smarter than we but, whether we like it or not, they got there first, and it's sometimes harder to change the rules than to set them. It doesn't matter if the rules or laws are just or unjust. It's easier^vii to go along than to risk punishment for deviation. The deviation may be from the words of men in the past, or those who have power at present and can change the rules to suit their own purposes. Certainly there are those who willingly accept the penalties resulting from violation of the rules, but they are the minority.^viii Too many of us take a safer path, even if we consider it wrong. We fear the consequences. It is that kind of fear upon which any tyrannical^ix government is based.

Also troubling is the knowledge that whatever the origin of the rules,^x the interpretation of a few individuals – their determination of what the canons mean – is controlling, whether that was or was not the intent of those who framed them. We've accepted that also. In the case of our Constitution and its interpretation, for example, the Supreme Court can't be questioned, although constitutional amendment is possible and later on the Court may change its mind. And in the case of most of our laws, regulators make the rules by which we have to live. It's not always the decisions of the past that rule us but often current rule-makers.

But that's the system. And it doesn't apply to secular laws alone. The Bible, or Koran, or other foundational document, containing what believers accept as G-d's word, directs us to the path we must follow. (We live by the sweat of our brows, and we give birth in pain because our ancestors strayed from that path. We're bound by actions as well as words. History tells us that.) The explication of the details, however, is often decided by humans and we may thus be obliged to follow man-made, or man-“explained,” rules while we are trying to comply with divine ordinances. For those who attribute some or all of what is written in those books to their ancestors, the mediation of other men, as is the case with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, takes the process one step further from the intent of the author or authors. And since human viewpoints change from time to time,^xi the understanding of laws – secular or divine – is likely to change as well.

Is that the kind of system we want? Do we want to be obliged to follow rules in whose making we played no part, and with which we may not agree? It's a hard question to answer, and one with many parts. From my perspective, however, the bottom line answer is “yes,” but there are many exceptions, and it's probable that the exceptions will be different depending on where you live and what the rules are there. And it will depend on you – what are your core beliefs, whether you are an absolutist or relativist, and whether you are a martyr or not.

What approaches can you take? If you prefer the outlook of another society to your own, you should consider a change of location. If it is the religious beliefs with which you take issue, perhaps a change of religion or its abandonment is worth your consideration. But if you consider that the rules that you follow are, whatever their faults, basically appropriate, then you should be working to change them to the degree that you find them incorrect. It may require personal sacrifice of time or money or, if you feel strongly enough about the subject, civil disobedience and the penalties that follow. But if you believe, as I do, that society, on the whole, is an improvement on the chaos of the State of Nature, then you'll probably accept the idea that we are bound by the rules that have been set up, and they should be followed until we can change them. Laws are a two-edged sword. They can help us and they can hurt us. But until we can achieve a society in which they're all good, we'll have to accept the value and risks they bring.

Next episode: “Stout Zombies" -- High, not wide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i        “Prometheus Bound,” Aeschylus (at least it's usually attributed to him), probably the fifth century BCE.

ii       “Prometheus Unbound,” Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1820.

iii     Nature may still set geographical and meteorological bounds, but the rules of human interaction are up to us.

iv     Which is, according to Wikipedia, “the civil power which exists to enforce contracts and the laws of nature generally.”

v        At least we should.

vi      Shorthand for “people.”

vii     And it requires far less thought. It's easier to do as you're told and defend your actions with the standard excuse: “I was only following orders.” It's not always right, however. In fact, it's usually wrong.

viii    Civil disobedience has a long and honored history. The example of Rosa Parks is one we should all remember.

ix     Whether fascist, communist, or one based on any other self-serving or undemocratic practice. When the governing power uses force freely to control those whom it rules, there will be few who protest. Most will accept the dictates of those in power rather than risk whatever consequences follow on their disobedience to the wishes of their rulers.

x       Some rules are made solely for the benefit of the lawmaker and his friends.

xi      And from society to society. We call that “cultural relativism.”

Now You Know Everything

 

In the highly unlikely event that you've been reading my maunderings for the past two years, you know a little about how I think. You're also aware that I know everything. At least you should be. I've told you so. But while I know everything, I don't tell it all. And there are several reasons for this.

The first is that there isn't enough space. Look up anything using a search engine and you'll find uncountable references, irrespective of the unimportance of the subject. However inane it is,ⁱ many people have written about it. Many of those references are wrong. I know they're wrong because they disagree with me. It's obvious, though, that the plethora of writings on various subjects is unmanageable. Once the Library at Alexandria could house much of the world's knowledge. More recently the Library of Congress has managed to contain a small amount of this knowledge, and now the internet tries, but totally fails, in the same quest. Only I know everything -- but as you can guess, there isn't enough room to reveal it all, so I dole it out in small amounts.

Another important reason is that the reader simply won't understand all I have to say. He'll be depressed. And the last thing I want to do is to make the ignorant feel inadequate. He knows it already and I don't want to rub it in.

Much of what I know isn't relevant to current society and mores. American culture nowadays is undisciplined and ruled by the media, old wives's tales, technology, and other fads, and there is little appreciation of the past and its contributions. Any society that can condemn fat and salt while lionizing exercise and iPads is corrupt and has been badly misled. Any country that gives away money and permits cigarettes is just looking for approval by voters. But that's not all of my message 2 U.ⁱⁱ

Rather, I'd like to go over one subject that's important to me but, assuming it would hold less interest for you, I've underplayed. The subject is religion -- specifically mine, Judaism. This morning, though, as I was looking at my tzitzit,ⁱⁱⁱ it struck me that my view of Judaism was of sufficient interest to me that even if you can't relate to it there are some things I want to say. Because even if I know everything, I don't have to like everything the way it is.

Don't misunderstand. My intent is not to fault Judaism, but I can't ignore the faults of some of its adherents. Because so many have been assimilating and intermarrying – especially in the context of a free American society – the overall number of Jews has been decreasing, and there has been fear that our community would die out, and with that, among other tragedies – especially spiritual – we would lose whatever political influence we have. Since we have long supported Israel,^iv and America has joined in this stance, there has been fear that American assistance might be jeopardized. Fortunately the non-Jewish community, especially the Christian right, favors our country's support of Israel. And fortunately as well, the Orthodox population is increasing both absolutely and, even moreso, proportionately, so that, at least in the New York area,^v the number of Jews is increasing, along with the observance of biblical injunctions.

But we're like all other people, and there are numerous problems among the Orthodox as well. The difficulties of adapting to modern society, and the close watching by modern society, have led both to scandals resulting from unacceptable behavior by some who fashion themselves as “good” Jews, and to increasing pressure on Israel both by non-Jews and some Jews as well. It has also led to greater pressure on Israel, since many view this as a politically correct way to express anti-Semitism, a bias that has existed in countless different forms for millennia.

To a degree, the anti-Semitism has helped us to survive. Jews were kept separate from non-Jewish communities and were united in the will to survive. With an inclination toward knowledge – especially of their religion – and the exclusion from the outside world, the Jewish community developed a large number of Rabbis and scholars^vi who interpreted the holy books far beyond what was sensible^vii or true, and that, even if inapplicable to our times, is what we have to follow. It has become tradition, even if we might prefer a different view of the material.

But I recognize that much of this came about because of the insularity forced by anti-Semitism, and I recognize that the activities of those scholars, and the traditions that arose from their debates, are what have helped us to survive, and that modern fashions and trends are destructive. And the loyalty of so many Jews provides the glue that will continue to keep our community together, notwithstanding the pressure from so many of our own people to adapt to the society in which we live.

So I can live with the traditions. And I can live with the knowledge that some of what I know – which is everything – is wrong. My view of life, even if it's a view anchored in the past – no, because it's a view anchored in the past – is true. As I said, I know everything. And I don't have to tell you (I said also that I don't intend to tell you everything) there is nothing new under the sun. Just trust me.

Next episode: “Forethought” – Full frontal capacity.

i       And I know inane.

ii      Did this all start with Francis Gary Powers and the Pentagon in the 1950s?

iii    The fringes or threads mentioned in Bamidbar (Numbers) 15:38 and D'varim (Deuteronomy) 22:12 that are worn “on the corners of your garments.”

iv    Although more and more liberal and unaffiliated Jews now question that support. The greater the temporal separation from the Holocaust and the founding of Israel, and the more detachment from Judaism as a religion, the less interest Jews have in Israel.

v     The numbers come from a UJA-Federation report and include the facts that 40 percent of the city's Jews consider themselves Orthodox – it was 33 percent in 2002 – and 74 percent of all Jewish children in the city are Orthodox.

vi    A cadre of padres?

vii   In fact, some of the scenarios suggested in the Talmud are bizarre or laughable, and some of the science and history is clearly fallacious. We often view what we don't like as metaphorical, and look for a more acceptable interpretation.