You suggested that we cannot apply consequentialism to health care because the situation is too unpredictable. I responded that unpredictability does not seem to be an inherent reason against consequentialism, and I provided the example of warfare (if we cannot be sure which decision will allow fewer soldiers to be killed, it does not mean that we should switch to a deontological view that fails to take those consequences into account).

I asked you to explain why we should still choose a deontological approach in light of that objection, and what deontological approach you would choose/how it would apply to health care. I don’t think I’m “misunderstanding [your] criticisms of Singer’s arguments,” but rather that I objected to your criticisms in each post, and you lack a response to my last objection.

If you really made a criticism of Singer that I didn’t understand/respond to, or if you can point to an actual “contradictory behavior” that Singer is engaging in, I’d be very happy to hear about either one. Otherwise, I’ll read the newspaper for more discussion of this topic, and I’ll continue reading your and others’ articles about other topics on this site. Keep up the good work with everything else.

Mark

Then again, at the point that leftist pressure groups sue to force the release of the names and addresses of people who signed a petition they disagree with in Washington State for the explicit purpose of publishing their personal information on the web and encouraging readers to confront and harass them, I think the desire on the left to use the government as a tool for the coercive suppression of political dissent is very real.

did I go back in time and move to the USSR?

At the point that a White House official openly asks people to report their neighbors who dissent from its public health care proposals, it is a disturbingly valid question.

Well YEAH….If something I liked (or was happy with) was being attacked by the majority party in my government, I would certainly self report satisfaction. That is to put it lightly… (more likely probably vehemently tell them absolutely no single payer system).. That is certainly what seems to be happening with most American voters anyway in regards to healthcare. When you see people at these town hall meetings…

Oh right, according to MSM these meetings are “fabricated”, “astroturf” I forgot.
Where and when do we live again? did I go back in time and move to the USSR?

Since our health care system has not changed yet, the alteration in reported satisfaction levels could not be based on a change in the level of care. The most parsimonious explanation would seem to be that it is a response to those campaigns, which is certainly what they were intended to elicit.

You didn’t respond to my previous post (#6, directly above the “marc moore” post) about what deontological approach you would choose over a consequentialist one like Singer’s, and how it would be applied to health care. That would be enlightening.

Or you could question whether your beliefs are universal. But nah, that’s bad for your ego. Don’t ever do that.

There is also the question of when to draw the line in providing care to the elderly, given that we are rationing health care and that 30% of Medicare spending takes place during a “client”’s last year of life. If we’re talking about directing health care dollars, most of that money would be better spent on the very young rather than the very old.