[DoofusOfDeath]

From a now-dead comment:

> He’s a bigoted right-wing conservative who doesn’t want to hear about interesting scientific developments that he views as benefiting people with lifestyles that he condemns.

Perhaps not here, but I think this is a view worth discussing. I'm moderately conservative, and some of that comment's criticism resonates with my own thoughts.

With cases like HIV/AIDS, I find myself pulled between several competing virtues:

One one side there's mercy and compassion; I'd like to minimize the suffering of hurting people. Even if someone is in dire straights because of actions that I view as unwise (extramarital sex, recreational drug use, etc.), I still want to want what's best for that person.

On the other side, there's justice. I live in a society where everyone pays, to some degree, for individuals' unwise behavior. E.g., Medicare/Medicaid for smokers' lung cancer or HIV treatment for persons who chose to indulge in risky behavior. I'm not okay with forcing the community at large to cover the costs of (what I view as) individuals' selfish actions.

I don't know what the right balance to this is. More generally, I'm not sure if there are any good principles for finding the right tradeoff between two virtues. I wish I knew. I want to do good, but the path is often obscure.

[FooBarBizBazz]

You can flip peoples' tribal affiliations on this topic by changing the disease to COVID. Do red-state antimaskers deserve treatment? Should responsible Americans pay for their reckless lifestyle?

[DoofusOfDeath]

> You can flip peoples' tribal affiliations on this topic by changing the disease to COVID. Do red-state antimaskers deserve treatment? Should responsible Americans pay for their reckless lifestyle?

Personally, I'm not sure. As I said above, I'm conflicted on the issue.

Regarding anti-maskers, I think it depends on the particular reason a person is anti-mask.

I'm working on the assumption that a lifelong smoker or someone who intentionally eschews safe-sex practices is generally aware of the risk they're courting. In my mind, this is "privatization of reward, socialization of risk" is similar to what we on HN often complain about regarding corporate bailouts.

In contrast, I could believe that at least some anti-maskers are genuinely misinformed about the risk posted by their behavior. I have less trouble feeling empathy for someone who's working from wrong beliefs, than someone who's knowingly being selfish.

[foldr]

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.

[Rule35]

> 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.

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

[imwillofficial]

"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.

[IAmEveryone]

Wow, this is the worst misinterpretation of conservatism I've seen... (let's say 'today')

Sex isn't wrong. It just so happens that it can lead to HIV infection. If you wish people get infected, you've created a moral loop that just punishes people because you enjoy watching people suffer. Congratulations, maybe you do have a handle of conservatism-as-practiced, after all.

It'd make just as much sense to threaten to kill anyone found in public without a blue towel: you'd get the satisfaction of righteousness indignation and the honour of killing lots of people for completely arbitrary reasons.

[heavyset_go]

> It'd make just as much sense to threaten to kill anyone found in public without a blue towel:

But they knew what would happen if they went out in public without a blue towel /s

[DoofusOfDeath]

FWIW, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I apologize for my post's confusing wording.