Who To Blame

關於這個，無論想了多少遍，我還是很想不通。

晚上看到一篇Quora問題『Positive Rights: Why do many Americans think that healthcare is not a right for its own taxpaying citizens?』

我本來是打算讀來放鬆心情，看看各方和平稱述，舒展一下腦細胞，但是這個回答又震到我了：

As a European, who has lived his whole life with access to "free at the point of delivery" health care, it has taken me a long time to understand why so many of my American friends find the idea of universal free health care a problem. 

However, I have come to a conclusion. 

It is my belief that the backlash against state organised health care, is actually the a demonstration of the dark side of the American dream. 

The fundamental mythos of American culture, is that no matter how poor or humble your birth, you can through grit, spunk and hard work become wealthy and prosperous. 

On the face of it, and from the perspective of a class divided Europe, that seems incredibly noble and empowering. The idea that there is that much social mobility, that anyone can forge their own destiny is a powerful part of the American psyche. When it happens, it is an incredible thing. Something Americans can feel proud of. 

However, there is a dark side to this mythos. Which is this... if anyone can win through hard work and effort, anyone who doesn't win, therefore deserves to be poor. 

At the core of all the anti-health care reforms is the single concept "why should I pay for the healthcare of those losers." 

It doesn't matter how it is presented, that is the core issue. 

Now, there is another problem. That is that social mobility in the USA isn't radically different from European countries. People born into poor families tend to remain poor. People born into rich families tend to stay rich. The only difference is that in Europe, we don't bankrupt people or let them die prematurely due to lack of medical care. 

It's very rare for me to make an answer anonymous, but in this case I think it's probably prudent. I can't imagine this is going to a popular answer.

很久之前我會開始好奇決定論是因為上課說到Determinism；一段時間以前我又在認真考慮這個是因為看了『群星劃過夜空』與『Outlier』們一群書後一時感觸良多，與小魚妞妞困惑夜談至淩晨；幾天前又震驚到是因為看了『雲圖』。

人到底能不能為自己負責？既然他所做出的所有決定都是因為a）環境影響，b）環境影響，c）環境影響？先勿論未來是否已成定論、只待未知來臨，最重要的是人到底有沒有自由意志？那些隨機性的『混亂』造成的區別，難道也能算作是自由意志的一部分嗎？

But to what extent is "like father, like son" true? 這真可怕。

難道把罪犯槍斃，不是因為『他們做出了大惡不赦的決定，殺害了一個無辜的生靈』，而是因為『雖然他做出的決定、他之所以成為今天的樣子，都不是他可以控制與決定的事情，但是因為群情激奮、天理難容，我們必須依照法律行事，將其處以死刑』？

先把理當如何放在一邊，在實際操作中，社會功能若還想要繼續運轉，的確是必須這樣摁下側刀的。因為無法向所有的人解釋清『決定論』這種從直覺角度看上去荒謬無比的事情。而罪犯也不會因此自知——那不是『他的錯』，純技術上來說——也更不會因此就痛改前非，從此金盆洗手。

但『技術上』來說，這到底又能算是誰的錯？

沒有寄予他關愛、溫暖與教育的父母嗎？難道是他沒有能以夠陽光普照大地的國家政策？寫出政策的人嗎？他父母的父母？的父母？的父母？的祖先？山頂洞人？第一只不小心吸入海水的浮游生物嗎？Who, or what, could be to blame for everything? Or do people just tend to find someone to blame, like they've already done in so many other dreadful occasions?

『一切個體特徵，會通過與他人與環境的交互融入循環，生生不息，直至永恆。』

這真可怕。

如果我們無法『決定』是否被環境影響，至少我們可以『決定』去被什麼環境影響。

這真可怕。可是又有種讓人迷醉的可怕的美，簡直絢爛得叫人無法挪開視線。