There are lots of ways to be a "decent human being". For example, some people care a lot about environment. Others care about immigrants. Still others care about the ill effects of aging on all of us.
Yet we don't have unlimited resources to devote to all of the worthwhile causes. At any given time, there's only a limited amounts of time, energy, and money available. Someone has to decide which causes--all worthwhile--should have priority.
If it's your own money, you get to decide. If it's money seized from you by the government, some government committee gets to decide. Since old people are the largest voting bloc, government officials tend to give their preferences a high priority. So we get a lot of government spending on the fears of old people: war on drugs, wars on "brown people" (both here and abroad), and healthcare for old people.
Even if healthcare for old people is your top priority, is forcing everyone to subsidize the medical care of old people in the last six months of their life (which is how most government healthcare dollars are spent) the best way to be a "decent human being"?
Maybe so. But perhaps the best way to be a "decent human being" would be to provide palliative care to the already aged, and devote the rest to research on anti-aging therapies that prevent the diseases of old age in the first place. Or maybe the best way to be a "decent human being" is to devote your resources to something else altogether, such as global warming, animal rights, or international development. Or maybe starting a business that generates wealth sufficient to pay for all the good things you want to fund.
In any case, that someone doesn't agree with your priorities doesn't mean they're not a "decent human being". It just means that they would make other choices, if they were given a choice.
Yet we don't have unlimited resources to devote to all of the worthwhile causes. At any given time, there's only a limited amounts of time, energy, and money available. Someone has to decide which causes--all worthwhile--should have priority.
If it's your own money, you get to decide. If it's money seized from you by the government, some government committee gets to decide. Since old people are the largest voting bloc, government officials tend to give their preferences a high priority. So we get a lot of government spending on the fears of old people: war on drugs, wars on "brown people" (both here and abroad), and healthcare for old people.
Even if healthcare for old people is your top priority, is forcing everyone to subsidize the medical care of old people in the last six months of their life (which is how most government healthcare dollars are spent) the best way to be a "decent human being"?
Maybe so. But perhaps the best way to be a "decent human being" would be to provide palliative care to the already aged, and devote the rest to research on anti-aging therapies that prevent the diseases of old age in the first place. Or maybe the best way to be a "decent human being" is to devote your resources to something else altogether, such as global warming, animal rights, or international development. Or maybe starting a business that generates wealth sufficient to pay for all the good things you want to fund.
In any case, that someone doesn't agree with your priorities doesn't mean they're not a "decent human being". It just means that they would make other choices, if they were given a choice.