Quote (zarkadon @ 18 Mar 2020 16:55)
Yeah, time will tell, and shit storms will arise in countries that went down whichever path proves worse.
Lockdown in China is much more effective than in Europe. In Wuhan, people were not allowed to leave their homes under any circumstances, and food was being delivered to them. In Spain, Italy, etc, people are going to the supermarket, bank and so on, and public transportation is still functioning as some people are still allowed to work. Plus there are people who still break curfew, while in China nobody would dare do that.
On another note, I think people are mistaken when they think that those accepting the risk of letting avoidable deaths happen are cold, monstrous or lack solidarity. These people fear the impact the economic consequences will have on the population... job losses, budget cuts, evictions, etc. and they believe this will cause a greater suffering to the overall population, than the deaths of a small percentage of people who in many cases don't have much time left anyway.
Our culture is generally skewed in favour of Kantist morality, but that doesn't mean utilitarianism is immoral. It's essentially driven by the same impulses of solidarity and wanting the betterment of people's well being... it's just the approach on how to reach that good that makes them at odds with each other. Both utilitarian and kantist morality pursue good.
Consider this thought experiment:
Imagine a deity descended to Earth and told humans that it could get rid of cancer forever, making our species immune to it... however, if we chose to accept this gift, we will forever be banned from using internet. Would it be immoral to "let millions of people die" while we try and find a cure for ourselves, or should we accept the gift and get rid of cancer forever... at the expense of losing the internet, and seeing our whole social and economic system collapse, leading to much more suffering and deaths of other kind?
I think we would likely all accept the deaths from cancer in this case.
And I know this thought experiment is exaggerated, but I just wanted to show that the reasoning behind it isn't inherently immoral.
- I was talking about ITALY: 3 weeks after the lockdown there's almost no new case. It's the first area which was locked. Yes it was 3 weeks ago.
- Must have a serious Bias to start to believe China numbers. Even the deads ones.
- Once again you are advocating about pseudo recession argumentation and job loss, which concerns only a small part of workers BTW. Giving it priority to over LIFE.
- And now you are about to say that the 2% deserve to sacrify themselve, that could be considered as acceptable.
Seems like you are a part of these people who show no empathy, and are only changing their mind when they are directly concerned by the problem.
Quote (ofthevoid @ 18 Mar 2020 17:25)
I would.
My dad died of liver and kidney failure due to alcoholism. By your logic should we ban or heavily regulate this as well considering alcohol is magnitudes worse as a killer than this virus? How about cars? Should we all stop driving because car accidents are a huge reason many people die?
You see my point? At some point, we forego safety and take on some risks because it's part and parcel of what life is.
Such an amazing shortcut. Congratulation, you just let your father die a second time.
This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Mar 18 2020 10:40am