Health Care, Basic Rights and Darwinism

As most of you know by now, the Health Care Law Hits Supreme Court this week. The issue is obviously emotional and heated on both sides. One of the more common claims on the pro-healthcare law side is that healthcare is a basic human right. I was listening to one of our local talk shows, Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft, on WLS AMin Chicago and a caller raised an interesting perspective on this issue. Being an apologist I liked the caller’s idea of using the opposing side’s arguments and views against them. It is something I do and have done in many areas including the question of Darwinism and morality. The idea of “basic human rights” is a subset of the question of morality.

There is a decided contradiction in the thinking on the left. There is a rigidity approaching a religious fervor that Darwinism is the answer to where we came from, why we are here and that we are going nowhere when we die. It is the view taught in all public schools and any discussion of a creator or intelligent designer are not allowed for fear of letting God in the door. But if they really believe Darwinism is true, on what basis would they argue for health care as a basic human right?

Darwinism is clear that those that survive survive. The weak, the infirmed, the elderly, the handicapped do not survive and that is how evolution weeds out and breeds out the less desirable. The idea of helping the sickly, infirmed, elderly and handicapped comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview which holds to a creator from Whom moral absolutes and compassion are taught and modeled.

Think about it. In nature, what happens to the weak, sickly, crippled, etc? They are left behind by the herd. When predators come a hunting, those that can flee do so and those that cannot are dinner. It is simple and efficient. Resources are better used by the remaining healthy and not wasted on the unhealthy. If the Federal Government was going to be consistent they would eliminate healthcare from any and all Federal programs and the citizens who want to survive will have to figure out a way to survive. Those who don’t, well that is Darwinism at work.

Eastern religions like Hinduism do not fare much better than Darwinism. Darwinism is perfection by evolution and Hinduism is perfection by reincarnation, a sort of spiritual evolution. In that system any who suffers do so as the way to work off bad Karma from previous lives and helping them would actually be bad for it prevents them from working off their bad Karma. Better to let them suffer and die and move on to better lives ahead.

While the issue is being argued in court perhaps conservatives could use the argument from evolution and further expose the double think from which liberals often suffer.


Comments

Health Care, Basic Rights and Darwinism — 2 Comments

  1. I am a libertarian, and I oppose a right to heathcare, especially if that means using coercion to provide it. I believe the coercion and the moral hazard unleashed by “free” healthcare are a greater evil than the benefit to the poor. However, I do believe evolution is a sound theory as a self-catalytic system. I believe a smart leftist could answer this critique you put forth. There could be a genetic self-interest in forcing others to pay for the healthcare of the infirm, weak, etc. Dawkins points out that peacocks show their plume despite the danger or irrationality of the act. A leftist could argue that humans who provide healthcare for their neighbors are performing the same sort of act, signaling that they are superior to other humans who cannot afford to help others. This would make them more attractive to mates. “I’m so strong and productive that I can help the weak.” The only flaw in this logic is that the left is not arguing for voluntary charity by individuals (the position I support), but instead for taking the money of unknown third person to pay for a person they do not know.

  2. There could be a “genetic self-interest” but that would be an argument from faith. If one helped the sick or infirmed thinking that it might give them a dating advantage but they were viewed by their predator as weak and then eliminated how would that have been passed on. The more consistent view comes is that the male woudl simply take the female of his choosing. He is bigger and stronger and consistently with Darwinism conquers what he wants. The book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Palmer and Thornhill (both Darwinists) argues that rape is simply the way evolution used for less desireable men to propagate their gene pool on females. Whether one agrees or not it is at least consistent with Darwinism which is essentially predator and prey, unguided accidents leading to new species for no apparent reason. Consistent Darwinism is at its core utilitarian. Margaret Sanger was a Social Darwinist (along with Hitler, Marx and others) who promoted abortion as a way to weed out and breed out “the inferior plant in the human garden.” Darwinism is not kind, has not thoughts or feelings and we find no basis within Darwinism to show compassion on the sick, elderly, handicapped, etc. That does not mean Darwinists are not compassionare. Many of them are but they are so inconsistently with Darwinism. Of course, my opinion nad $3.00 might buy coffee at Starbucks:D

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>