4 ms·

Lots of reacting to the title here. Which, granted, is sensationalist. I think this nicely sums up the article's point: "It's the civic and moral duty of ever

Lots of reacting to the title here. Which, granted, is sensationalist. I think this nicely sums up the article's point: "It's the civic and moral duty of every person, everywhere, to take part in the global effort to reduce this threat to humanity. To postpone any movement or travel that are not vitally essential, and to spread the disease as little as possible. Have your fun in June, July and August when this—hopefully—is over. Stay safe. Good luck." In other words, it's not "this is young people's fault" but "just because you are young doesn't mean you should ignore this"

maerF0x0 7y ago
> civic and moral duty of every person According to which canon? I find it slightly narcissistic to claim that I would have a moral right to someone else's behavior when it's well within my ability to take preventative steps for my own safety (Wash my hands, dont leave my house, and in between as my risk tolerance allows). It's a little like someone saying "You all owe me X because I exist". Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised?
- tdhoot 7y ago
  > Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised? Yes? For example, get your vaccines so those who cannot get them have herd immunity.
  - brianTheDog 7y ago
    Ah so people should have free will taken away.
    - balls187 7y ago
      Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
      - brianTheDog 7y ago
        Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.
        stetrain 7y ago
        Because some of us see our friends, family, and neighbors as more than a set of genes to pass on to the next generation. And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.
        stetrain 7y ago
        Also large swaths of the elderly dying is unlikely to have much of an effect on strengthening our gene pool, no?
        balls187 7y ago
        Unfortunately all humans are born with weak immune systems, and sadly babies aren't fully vaccinated until they are ~2 years old. We protect them, because they eventually become our society. That pesky "future generations" concept. You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again. Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."
        ziheck 7y ago
        Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live
        jshevek 7y ago
        How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?
    - jshevek 7y ago
      I thought people were advocating for responsible behavior, not enforcement.
    - manicdee 7y ago
      We also have our freedoms limited by: - road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.
- sbuttgereit 7y ago
  I'm not terribly big on the ideas of "civic duty" or "moral duty"... especially as they are usually meant. And as you couch it, I would somewhat agree with your take if it didn't go any farther than that. However, I think it does. Assuming an egoist version of morality, where the goal of morality is the happiest life you can live over the whole of life... I still think there are good reasons to adopt many of the more precautionary steps that are being publicly urged, even if you are in a low risk group. For example. Am I better off, ultimately, living in a sicker community or not? True, I might be low risk and might not get seriously ill, but the impacts from those that do get seriously ill won't just be limited to them... economics, public expenditure, etc. all go down this path of being a net negative to my larger quality of life personally, even though I can wash my hands, etc. Add to this the likelihood that I will miss something in my precautions either through lack of knowledge or diligence, and not doing the most obvious sorts of things you might do if you were in a relatively high risk group can still lead to you becoming a vector in your own self-harm. This isn't even mentioning the fact that, while I'm not high risk, I know and live with people, people that I value, who are in high risk groups for serious complications to an infection. Finally, while I don't have the right to other people's behavior in general, I do have the right to self-defense and so do others; and this right is largely delegated to government. Governments rightfully, if not legally perhaps, can demand some of these things in that context.... that's not to say they'd get it right... or even try to get it right... but that aspect is important. So sitting here from my egoist perspective, it's in my better interest to minimize outside contact almost as much as if I were in a high risk group.
- r3xpi 7y ago
  This feels like a knee jerk reaction formulated from a privileged perspective that believes that all beings’ lives are the same- or have the potential to be the same- as your own. Do you owe it to the immunocompromised? As such an individual, I do not believe I am owed anything of any stripe by anybody. However, as a human being and good citizen, I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community. Rampantly- or willingly to use less charged verbiage- spreading a novel virus that is extremely deadly to certain segments or demographics of my community seems antithetical to that. As a contra argument, I am capable of reliably and safely operating a vehicle at 95 mph- why should I be expected to observe speed limit laws that are intended to protect those that cannot? Does that make the law abiding drivers narcissistic? Lastly, have you considered the impact on community services that widespread disablement of the workforce due to illness could have? It may very well touch your life in a big way. Edit: grammar.
  - maerF0x0 7y ago
    > I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community This is a collectivist morality that not everyone shares. I would argue that American culture is fairly anti-collectivist (at least as I've observed today) I, however, agree with the general sentiment that others' welfare may be in the individual best interest so maybe that's the avenue to persuade individualist.
- angelbar 7y ago
  Ok, we get it you do not have civic or moral compass. Noted.

maerF0x0 7y ago

> civic and moral duty of every person According to which canon? I find it slightly narcissistic to claim that I would have a moral right to someone else's behavior when it's well within my ability to take preventative steps for my own safety (Wash my hands, dont leave my house, and in between as my risk tolerance allows). It's a little like someone saying "You all owe me X because I exist". Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised?

tdhoot 7y ago
> Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised? Yes? For example, get your vaccines so those who cannot get them have herd immunity.
- brianTheDog 7y ago
  Ah so people should have free will taken away.
  - balls187 7y ago
    Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.
    - brianTheDog 7y ago
      Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.
      - stetrain 7y ago
        Because some of us see our friends, family, and neighbors as more than a set of genes to pass on to the next generation. And if those friends, family, and neighbors are clogging up a strained medical system that could even cause harm to us when we require such services for our own well being.
      - stetrain 7y ago
        Also large swaths of the elderly dying is unlikely to have much of an effect on strengthening our gene pool, no?
      - balls187 7y ago
        Unfortunately all humans are born with weak immune systems, and sadly babies aren't fully vaccinated until they are ~2 years old. We protect them, because they eventually become our society. That pesky "future generations" concept. You see, our immune system is built up over time with exposure to viruses, and inoculations. Then as we age, as our health decreases, our immune system gets worse again. Personally, as I make my way through middle age, I hope that when I do reach my golden years I'm met with a little bit more compassion than "who cares about you, you're old and useless."
      - ziheck 7y ago
        Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live
      - jshevek 7y ago
        How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I thought people were advocating for responsible behavior, not enforcement.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    We also have our freedoms limited by: - road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.
sbuttgereit 7y ago
I'm not terribly big on the ideas of "civic duty" or "moral duty"... especially as they are usually meant. And as you couch it, I would somewhat agree with your take if it didn't go any farther than that. However, I think it does. Assuming an egoist version of morality, where the goal of morality is the happiest life you can live over the whole of life... I still think there are good reasons to adopt many of the more precautionary steps that are being publicly urged, even if you are in a low risk group. For example. Am I better off, ultimately, living in a sicker community or not? True, I might be low risk and might not get seriously ill, but the impacts from those that do get seriously ill won't just be limited to them... economics, public expenditure, etc. all go down this path of being a net negative to my larger quality of life personally, even though I can wash my hands, etc. Add to this the likelihood that I will miss something in my precautions either through lack of knowledge or diligence, and not doing the most obvious sorts of things you might do if you were in a relatively high risk group can still lead to you becoming a vector in your own self-harm. This isn't even mentioning the fact that, while I'm not high risk, I know and live with people, people that I value, who are in high risk groups for serious complications to an infection. Finally, while I don't have the right to other people's behavior in general, I do have the right to self-defense and so do others; and this right is largely delegated to government. Governments rightfully, if not legally perhaps, can demand some of these things in that context.... that's not to say they'd get it right... or even try to get it right... but that aspect is important. So sitting here from my egoist perspective, it's in my better interest to minimize outside contact almost as much as if I were in a high risk group.
r3xpi 7y ago
This feels like a knee jerk reaction formulated from a privileged perspective that believes that all beings’ lives are the same- or have the potential to be the same- as your own. Do you owe it to the immunocompromised? As such an individual, I do not believe I am owed anything of any stripe by anybody. However, as a human being and good citizen, I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community. Rampantly- or willingly to use less charged verbiage- spreading a novel virus that is extremely deadly to certain segments or demographics of my community seems antithetical to that. As a contra argument, I am capable of reliably and safely operating a vehicle at 95 mph- why should I be expected to observe speed limit laws that are intended to protect those that cannot? Does that make the law abiding drivers narcissistic? Lastly, have you considered the impact on community services that widespread disablement of the workforce due to illness could have? It may very well touch your life in a big way. Edit: grammar.
- maerF0x0 7y ago
  > I do believe I owe it to those in my community to do my best to ensure we have a safe, healthy, and thriving community This is a collectivist morality that not everyone shares. I would argue that American culture is fairly anti-collectivist (at least as I've observed today) I, however, agree with the general sentiment that others' welfare may be in the individual best interest so maybe that's the avenue to persuade individualist.
angelbar 7y ago
Ok, we get it you do not have civic or moral compass. Noted.