I recently viewed the following podcast, and I found it thought provoking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y The interviewee, Peter Kingsnorth, posits that there exists a Hegelian struggle between a Thesis side (those in favor of mandates, lockdowns, and the like) and an Antithesis side (those against said measures), and that this struggle to find Synthesis has gone down the wrong path. The struggle has become a faux battle of quoting duel experts, whose papers we really don't understand because most of us are not scientists.
Instead, we need to examine our societal moral settings. Here the podcast thought ends and my thoughts begin.
There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.
1-Is there an ultimate good that must be pursued at all costs, or are there competing goods that need to be balanced against each other?
2-Is there an ultimate evil that must be avoided at all costs, or are there competing evils that must be balanced against each other?
I originally had a third question, “Are there any mitigating factors?”, but that merely clarifies whether one is in the first part of the question, or the second part.
Now, an accusation I hear both in the outside world as well as in this forum is the charge by the Thesis proponents that the Antithesis side does not take CoVid seriously. I find this question problematic because “seriousness” seems to be defined as a binary condition (you are either serious or you are not) whereas I think that “seriousness” exists along a spectrum. Of course, the fact that I see “seriousness” as a spectrum indicates that I am personally in the second half of the questions.
Getting back to our settings, the most pro-Thesis side possible would answer the questions in this fashion.
1-The ultimate good is zero CoVid infection with zero CoVid spread.
2-The ultimate evil is CoVid infection.
This particular formation has ramifications. Under this schema, death by any other means than CoVid is a preferable outcome to a non fatal CoVid infection. Going straight to Defcon 5, under these moral settings, it is morally defensible to automatically euthanize a non-vaccinated person who is hospitalized for CoVid. Now, I already hear the protests. “That would never happen here! People would never go for that, and who would do the euthanizing?” To that I reply, there is an important distinction between not supporting genocide because it is wrong, and not supporting genocide because it is not practical. The former questions the moral settings, while the latter can change their mind if efficiency can be assured..
So, what should our societal settings be?
Ray