Apparently. Hell, I'm Mr.
über-pragmatist in a lot of ways, but even I can't argue with the notion that society has some sort of moral obligation to care for those members that are incapable of caring for themselves. My preferred solution is to make sure that people have the means to take care of themselves, but I also know damn well that there are always going to be some people for whom that just isn't possible, given their particular circumstances.
Whatever. I'm off for the night - I'll leave you to argue against setting old folks adrift on passing icebergs ;)
Roger. Get some sleep, you being (for your sins) in an Eastern Elitist time zone.
but even I can't argue with the notion that society has some sort of moral obligation to care for those members that are incapable of caring for themselves And you're right.
But it should be society's choice as evidenced by their Personal Accountability ... be they Mother Teresa, some Junior Leaguer, a philanthropist or Frederic Ozanam.
The State's ability to provide healthcare and ensure "quality of life" has got to rank somewhere well below the ability of their "peacekeepers" to win wars.