4 ms·

There's an easy way to resolve that conflict that ought to appeal to religious conservatives: charity. If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV

by foldr 6y ago

There's an easy way to resolve that conflict that ought to appeal to religious conservatives: charity. If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay and yet no-one is suffering unnecessarily either. Oddly enough, despite being so deeply concerned with mercy and justice, religious conservatives do not appear to be among the leading donors to HIV-related charities. That said, I don't see any kind of ethical dilemma here at all. It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment. And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut.

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
Thanks very much for engaging the content of my post. I was disheartened to have shared my inner conflict on the issue, only to be downvoted into oblivion.
- gibrown 6y ago
  Just in case it adds clarification. I think the downvotes are due to equating HIV to justice. Smoking once it is well understood I guess kinda is, but HIV is really just a matter of luck like all infectious diseases. You can reduce your risk (eg masks for stopping flu or COVID), but to call it “justice” feels very callous to me.
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    Thanks for that. It sounds like I did a terrible job of expressing my thoughts. Perhaps one of my mistakes was using HIV as an example. If someone only skimmed my post, they may have pattern-matched on the whole "AIDS is punishment from God" trope, which is 100% not what I was trying to say.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  Dude, you positioned HIV as justice. I was disheartened that you posted that vile opinion, and more so that you’re _sad_ that people downvoted it. I hope that some day you find the light of the Lord, and come back from this wicked hateful bullshit morality that you’ve embraced.
imwillofficial 6y ago
"religious conservatives do not appear to be among the leading donors to HIV-related charities." Cite your sources please, because I've seen the opposite in my (limited) charity dealings.
Rule35 6y ago
> If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay If I feel you brought something on yourself why would I help you and not an innocent victim? And how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others, it would just be me instead of all of us, but still subsidizing. > It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment. No, only if that money couldn't do greater good elsewhere. > And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut. In some proportion to the number of donuts, yes. Of course. Or at least they should go to the back of the line after we've helped people who didn't self-inflict.
- foldr 6y ago
  I’m trying to look at this form the perspective of a religious conservative (presumably Christian, though I don’t know). “Only help others if you think they deserve it” is rather obviously not a precept that’s the basis of Christian charity. That is in fact why the OP says (quite despicably, in my view) that there is a conflict between justice and mercy in this case. > how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others OP objected to others being forced to pay. Charity is voluntary. > Or at least they should go to the back of the line What would this even mean in the case of the US. About 35% of adults are obese, and in almost all instances that’s due to their behavioral choices. Do we send a third of the population “to the back of the line”, or refuse to pay for their medical treatment?
  - DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
    I made my original post as an invitation to discuss my current views (which I admitted weren't settled). I was hoping to find any faults in my views' logic so I could replace them with something more logically consistent and, hopefully, loving. The fact that you call my initial exposition "despicable" reminds me that HN isn't a good forum for this kind of discussion. I regret posting a comment that elicited this kind of discussion.
    - 6y ago

by foldr 6y ago

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago

Thanks very much for engaging the content of my post. I was disheartened to have shared my inner conflict on the issue, only to be downvoted into oblivion.

gibrown 6y ago
Just in case it adds clarification. I think the downvotes are due to equating HIV to justice. Smoking once it is well understood I guess kinda is, but HIV is really just a matter of luck like all infectious diseases. You can reduce your risk (eg masks for stopping flu or COVID), but to call it “justice” feels very callous to me.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  Thanks for that. It sounds like I did a terrible job of expressing my thoughts. Perhaps one of my mistakes was using HIV as an example. If someone only skimmed my post, they may have pattern-matched on the whole "AIDS is punishment from God" trope, which is 100% not what I was trying to say.
amznthrwaway 6y ago
Dude, you positioned HIV as justice. I was disheartened that you posted that vile opinion, and more so that you’re _sad_ that people downvoted it. I hope that some day you find the light of the Lord, and come back from this wicked hateful bullshit morality that you’ve embraced.

imwillofficial 6y ago

"religious conservatives do not appear to be among the leading donors to HIV-related charities." Cite your sources please, because I've seen the opposite in my (limited) charity dealings.

Rule35 6y ago

> If you donate to charities that help pay for people's HIV treatment, then no-one is being forced to pay If I feel you brought something on yourself why would I help you and not an innocent victim? And how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others, it would just be me instead of all of us, but still subsidizing. > It would clearly be a moral obscenity to systematically allow people to die of treatable diseases because they can't afford treatment. No, only if that money couldn't do greater good elsewhere. > And if it's a question of 'blame' or 'risky behavior', then we should be refusing treatment to anyone who's ever eaten a donut. In some proportion to the number of donuts, yes. Of course. Or at least they should go to the back of the line after we've helped people who didn't self-inflict.

foldr 6y ago
I’m trying to look at this form the perspective of a religious conservative (presumably Christian, though I don’t know). “Only help others if you think they deserve it” is rather obviously not a precept that’s the basis of Christian charity. That is in fact why the OP says (quite despicably, in my view) that there is a conflict between justice and mercy in this case. > how would charity help resolve the issue of you dumping the cost on others OP objected to others being forced to pay. Charity is voluntary. > Or at least they should go to the back of the line What would this even mean in the case of the US. About 35% of adults are obese, and in almost all instances that’s due to their behavioral choices. Do we send a third of the population “to the back of the line”, or refuse to pay for their medical treatment?
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  I made my original post as an invitation to discuss my current views (which I admitted weren't settled). I was hoping to find any faults in my views' logic so I could replace them with something more logically consistent and, hopefully, loving. The fact that you call my initial exposition "despicable" reminds me that HN isn't a good forum for this kind of discussion. I regret posting a comment that elicited this kind of discussion.
  - 6y ago