Do I have an obligation to be healthy in virtue of the fact that my health problems contribute to higher health care premiums for other people?

Comments

I'm not convinced that we gain a lot here by talking about obligation; more on that below. However it's true: if you are unhealthy, then this makes at least a marginal difference to other people's health care premiums. That's one reason why it would be a good thing to try to stay healthy, even it we don't want to use the stronger language of obligation. Of course, it's just one among many reasons for trying to stay healthy, and almost certainly not the most important. Indeed, some of the other reasons (being able to care for your children, could be an example) might move us a lot closer to saying that you're obliged to stay as healthy as you can.

Why the hesitation about call it an obligation? Though staying healthy is a good thing in general, there are many, many things that are each, considered one by one, possible for us, and that would make others better off if we did them. However, there are so many such things that it's not even remotely possible to do them all. This makes it pretty clear that just because doing something would make others better off isn't reason enough all by itself to say that you're obliged to do it. We may well, as Kant suggests, have a general duty of beneficence, but that doesn't amount to saying that we're obliged to do each beneficent thing that we're capable of doing.

Read another response by Allen Stairs

Read another response about Biology, Ethics