Hovering in the background of church closures is the view that I have no right to put you at risk. Related to this is the ethical assumption that restrictions are justified "if they save just one life".
But as a matter of public policy and private behavior, no one actually operates with the principle that a restriction is justified or morally mandatory if it saves just one life. To begin with, that's hopelessly unrealistic. Life contains inevitable tradeoffs. Overprotective policies that save some lives do so at the expense of taking other lives. Policies have unintended consequences. There are no cost-free solutions.
So what we're really dealing with is the sorites paradox or little-by-little arguments. There is no intrinsic cutoff. So it's a question of degree. How much risk is acceptable? How much is too much? How much is too little? There is no ideal answer. But we need to avoid certain extremes that lead to moral and practical paralysis of action.
Can’t say these things too loudly.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you didnt see my last question but, I was wondering if you could provide articles or other corroboration that Dems are using this covid crap to attack churches? I dont doubt but, would like first hand or reliable resources to tell people.
Thanks!
There are widely reported examples of police ticketing or recording license plates of drive-in church services. Likewise, classifying an explicit Constitutional right (the free exercise of religion) as a nonessential good and service, punishable by fines.
DeleteThe points about trade-offs can't be emphasized enough. More discussion along those lines:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gcc.edu/Home/News-Archive/News-Article/faculty-qa-the-economic-impact-of-the-pandemic
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2020/03/18/has-the-coronavirus-panic-cost-us-at-least-10-million-lives-already/