I don't see it that way. I think my language was neutral. Your statement: "I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life th

I don't see it that way. I think my language was neutral. Your statement: "I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair" takes a very specific cultural frame as well. Plenty of people choose to risk their lives (or the lives of others) for all sorts of causes. I have as well. This statement sounds bad only if you take the position that staying alive trumps all other considerations. That's a very modern, Western perspective. Which is not to say Americans and Western Europeans act to protect lives at all costs, but to slightly generalize, Americans and Western Europeans morally believe that protecting lives is worth all costs. When that's not done, that's a moral compromise. People risk lives to volunteer in dangerous countries, to skydive, for ideological causes, for God and country, to be #1 in athletics competitions, or to earn enough to feed their families. All of those reflect different value systems. The exact same statement: "Would you risk you life to protect your honor by ____?" will make you sound like a horrible person if you say "yes" in some cultures and "no" in others. I don't think saying "I am glad to risk a few lives to make sure kids get an education" sound bad or seems unfair, and I don't think any less of people who say it. It's just a different value system from mine. Where I do have problems is where people push their value system on others. I understand see the public health perspective, where your actions affect my health and my decisions affect your health. But when my actions don't effect you (for example, keeping my child home), I should be able to follow my values. That goes broadly too -- if you decide not to teach your kids evolution, that should be your choice too.