No, every system has to let people die if they aren’t valuable enough. Even the most generous, open-hearted system must engage, at the end of the day, in triage. Resources are inevitably limited - throwing infinite resources after low-value cases is simply not viable, and, I would argue, also not moral. What system will put equal resources towards a 110 year-old with dozens of chronic problems and a 20 year-old with potential for full recovery? Will a commune exhaust their resources on a heavily-wounded stranger when there are limited critical resources needed for members of the commune? All systems choose to spend their resources in such a way that lets some die, and others live. Systems which put emphasis on wealth may appear more brutal in this sense, but in truth, they’re just more naked as to their processes and reasoning.
No, every system has to let people die if they aren’t valuable enough. Even the most generous, open-hearted system must engage, at the end of the day, in triage. Resources are inevitably limited - throwing infinite resources after low-value cases is simply not viable, and, I would argue, also not moral. What system will put equal resources towards a 110 year-old with dozens of chronic problems and a 20 year-old with potential for full recovery? Will a commune exhaust their resources on a heavily-wounded stranger when there are limited critical resources needed for members of the commune? All systems choose to spend their resources in such a way that lets some die, and others live. Systems which put emphasis on wealth may appear more brutal in this sense, but in truth, they’re just more naked as to their processes and reasoning.
Hm, maybe. But there is a difference between them dying being beneficial to the system or not.