This paper examines Norman Daniels' philosophical argument that society has a moral obligation to provide basic health care as a prerequisite for equality of opportunity. Drawing on utilitarian theory, Kantian deontology, and Rawls' theory of justice, the paper argues that access to basic health care is a foundational condition for individuals to pursue other rights and opportunities. The paper also addresses the primary libertarian counterargument — that taxation for public health care constitutes an infringement of individual liberty — and demonstrates why this objection constitutes a logical fallacy. Ultimately, the paper concludes that Daniels' case is philosophically robust and that the provision of basic health care is both a utilitarian imperative and a deontological obligation.
The paper demonstrates the classic philosophical "objection and reply" technique: after building a positive case across two ethical traditions, it steelmans the libertarian counterargument before methodically dismantling it. Identifying the libertarian position as an instance of "affirming the consequent" shows how naming a formal logical fallacy can efficiently resolve a normative dispute.
The paper opens with a thesis statement and a roadmap paragraph that names each section to come. It then moves through a utilitarian interpretation of Daniels, a deontological reading via Rawls, a presentation of the libertarian objection, a point-by-point rebuttal, and a synthesizing conclusion. This five-part argumentative arc — claim, support, counterargument, rebuttal, resolution — is a reliable model for undergraduate philosophy essays.
One of the most contentious social issues in the United States today is the debate over the responsibility of the state to provide basic health care services for its people. Norman Daniels argues that "if social obligations to provide appropriate health care are not met, then individuals are definitely wronged. Injustice is done to them." The essence of Daniels' argument is correct. This paper extends Daniels' argument using philosophical tradition and concludes that there is a social obligation to provide appropriate health care for people.
This essay summarizes Daniels' argument, lends it support using a range of philosophical traditions, and addresses the most critical counterargument against the provision of health care by the state. Daniels' argument can be rooted in utilitarianism or deontological ethics with equal strength. His proposition that libertarian philosophy also supports universal health care is weaker, and indeed the libertarian case represents the main counterargument to state provision of health care. The utilitarian perspective, however, offers the strongest case for the provision of health care — a conclusion that rests on understanding the basic role of government in society.
The utilitarian case that Daniels makes for the provision of health care rests on his interpretation of the link between "normal functioning and opportunity." Daniels argues that "social obligations to provide individuals only with those services that are part of the design of a system, which, on the whole, protects equal opportunity." Equal opportunity to pursue the life one envisions rests on a few different fundamentals: legal equality, safety, and the provision of the basics of life. From this understanding, government exists to provide, among other things, law enforcement, clean water, and a legal framework for equality. Daniels extends this argument to health care. His point is that without health, one cannot pursue one's other rights, such as the right to work, to raise a family, or to own property. In this, Daniels is correct: good health is generally a prerequisite to these activities. Daniels understands that government cannot guarantee good health for all, but his point is that the provision of basic health care gives most people equal footing with respect to their health. Nobody's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness should be undermined by minor, treatable health issues.
This argument has its roots in utilitarian theory. Daniels understands that the provision of basic health care is no guarantee of good health, but instead delivers an outcome consistent with the philosophy of doing the greatest good for the greatest number. Even if government exists only to provide the basic necessities and leaves the pursuit of anything beyond that to the individual, health care remains a basic necessity — a precondition for the pursuit of other activities. For the country to perform better and to deliver stronger social and economic outcomes for its people, it must provide for their basic needs. From a utilitarian perspective, higher GDP, greater economic growth, more upward mobility, and greater social stability all derive from government provision of the essential needs of human beings. The provision of basic health care is correlated with these positive outcomes, and it is therefore something that government should pursue as part of its mission to better the lives of the American people. If one accepts the proposition that government exists to facilitate the improvement of its constituents' lives, then one should also accept that government has an obligation to provide basic health care, given the demonstrated correlation between health care access and a wide range of positive social and economic outcomes.
There is also a strong deontological argument in favor of the provision of health care. Kantian deontology rests on the idea of the categorical imperative — that the morally correct action is determined by universal laws about what is morally right. The moral obligation in this sense is the obligation to pursue the correct ethical decision. Daniels grounds this side of his argument in Rawls' theory of justice. Daniels' interpretation of Rawls is a weak-form argument that "fair equality of opportunity is an appropriate principle to govern macro decisions about the design of our health-care system." As a society, he argues, we have a moral obligation to provide fair equality of opportunity, and the health care system is part of that. The underlying assumption is that the provision of basic health care contributes to equality of opportunity. It is not, strictly speaking, a direct obligation to provide people with health care; rather, it is a moral obligation to provide equality of opportunity, and health care is a necessary contributor to that equality.
Daniels' case is open to criticism, particularly the argument that health care is not a meaningful contributor to equality of opportunity. This objection has two implications. First, the empirical evidence shows a clear correlation between the provision of basic health care and a wide range of positive social and economic outcomes. Second, the underlying deontological case based on Rawls is not undermined by this criticism. The provision of equality of opportunity remains the right course of action, however one might define the clauses "equality of opportunity" and "moral obligation."
Daniels makes the case that there is a moral obligation to provide basic health care as part of our broader moral obligation to provide equality of opportunity. He makes a utilitarian argument that society is closer to equality of opportunity with access to health care — an argument that withstands scrutiny, given that greater access to health care produces better outcomes across the board. Daniels also makes a moral argument using Rawls' theory of justice. This argument is likewise strong, since there is widespread agreement among Americans that their nation should provide equality of opportunity for its people.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.