5 ms·

There is a difference between holding a principle, and holding an absolutist principle, absent thoughtfulness and discernment. While there are circumstances whe

There is a difference between holding a principle, and holding an absolutist principle, absent thoughtfulness and discernment. While there are circumstances where it's admirable to risk death for a principle (fighting to free slaves, refusing to comply with literal Nazis), there are also circumstances where it is the height of foolishness (the right to keep lights on at night in an apartment building during the WW2 London bombings). > Life is not about existing Existing is necessary but not sufficient for life. And while there's a strong argument for allowing the individual to risk or even choose death (seat belt laws, assisted suicide), the real crux of the matter is when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others. The moral evil of reducing freedom through the state's monopoly on force (such as a mask mandate) must be weighed against the moral evil of reducing freedom through harm (such as infection with a fatal illness). Whatever plausible scenario you can imagine that goes too far in one direction, you would be correct; and yet I can balance it with a plausible scenario that goes too far in the other direction. There is no rule or principle that frees us from the necessity of thoughtful discernment and debate.

aww_dang 6y ago
Above you asked about hypothetical fatality rates. We could just as easily ask about the economic and social damage caused by the lockdowns. Instead of indulging alarmist hypotheticals, we can look at some of the data available. According to the CDC, there's a 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. This includes people who are already unhealthy. The total number of deaths in Sweden hasn't increased, despite their lack of lockdowns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-... We both seem to agree that lockdowns represent a departure from our ideals of individual liberties. If I am reading you correctly, you're asking for a more gradient interpretation of these. We can agree to disagree here and move on to questioning the efficacy of the lockdowns themselves. If you're suggesting that the ends justify the means, fine. But if the means aren't especially effective at reducing deaths that argument falls apart. Excuse my cynicism, but it isn't hard to imagine the 'ends' as yet another assault on personal freedoms and the agency of individuals. Here the concept of the ends justifying the means fits perfectly. Unfortunately, this perspective isn't out of place with the trend of a growing security state.
- lukifer 6y ago
  To be clear: I was neither advocating for or against lockdowns. I'm advocating thoughtfulness of trade-offs, informed by (but not limited to) data; as opposed to rigid ideology, or knee-jerk gut reactions. And in particular: to recognize that even if one believes that the data of a specific real-world circumstance clearly favors one end of the spectrum, there are also circumstances where the data can break the other way. Therefore we need to be tolerant and open-minded to good-faith skepticism in either direction. The fact that a wrong answer can be fatal makes it all the more important to avoid what Daniel Schmachtenberger refers to as "limbic highjacking", or more colloquially, "being triggered" (which includes both fear of death, and fear of losing autonomy). > ends justifying the means... the trend of a growing security state It's also worth remembering that these are not mutually exclusive: that circumstances exist where the ends do justify the means, yet are also used as a cynical power grab with additional negative externalities. Again, the only way to know the difference is dispassionate discernment (what Julia Galef refers to as "scout mindset" rather than "soldier mindset" [0]). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8
- mLuby 6y ago
  Let's look not at all death rates over the past 10 years, but at deaths from COVID-19[1]: Norway [locked down]: 6.17 deaths/100K people Sweden [no lockdown]: 65.61 deaths/100K people [1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality as of November 28, 2020 at 03:00 AM EST.
syshum 6y ago
The problem here is not really about a mask mandate, while some people piss and moan about wearing a mask the majority of people would not protest or outright risist such a mandate However like with all government actions there is always subjective enforcement, and over reaction to the point that is no longer about inconvenience of a mask, but out right prohibition on activity including the ability of one to provide for their family via voluntary exchange with others that want to provide for their families. I have had many debates with people that simply want the government to "pay people to stay home" all the while these people do not understand interdependent economics and how that is not possible in modern society. Such a measure when in fact collapse society not just at an economic level So again you are claiming this is just "reasonable government measure" to wear masks, but the reality on the ground is far far far far different where governments are ordering businesses to close completely, and imposing other far more draconian measures on public. if we are going to debate government response to COVID it must be about the governments ACTUAL, and ACTIVE response not simply about the non-controversial measures that have become controversial and politically precisely because of the over action and other draconian measures put into place by that very same government Your final argument "when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others" is also a false one and a dangerous one. The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness, yet everyone else has assumed some level of risk on themselves that they may be exposed to sickness, but is COVID or the Flu, or the common cold every time they interact with others. They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others, just as Person A has that option. If both parties have voluntarily agreed to the interaction, then both parties have consented to that by assessing their own personal risk. For me, I have stopped in person shopping, stopped attending social and family events, etc. My risk assessments preclude me from participation in those things, however I have no either right to force other people to live under my personal risk assessment, thus if others choose a different path and want to take that person risk well that is on them This is all with out getting into the fact that the CDC data says there 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. So the "mortal risk" you have used to ethically justify the government intervention is debatable as well, as if that is the bar for extreme government intervention then we no longer have any civil liberties at all and must impose complete Authoritarianism upon all

aww_dang 6y ago

Above you asked about hypothetical fatality rates. We could just as easily ask about the economic and social damage caused by the lockdowns. Instead of indulging alarmist hypotheticals, we can look at some of the data available. According to the CDC, there's a 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. This includes people who are already unhealthy. The total number of deaths in Sweden hasn't increased, despite their lack of lockdowns. https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-deaths/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-... We both seem to agree that lockdowns represent a departure from our ideals of individual liberties. If I am reading you correctly, you're asking for a more gradient interpretation of these. We can agree to disagree here and move on to questioning the efficacy of the lockdowns themselves. If you're suggesting that the ends justify the means, fine. But if the means aren't especially effective at reducing deaths that argument falls apart. Excuse my cynicism, but it isn't hard to imagine the 'ends' as yet another assault on personal freedoms and the agency of individuals. Here the concept of the ends justifying the means fits perfectly. Unfortunately, this perspective isn't out of place with the trend of a growing security state.

lukifer 6y ago
To be clear: I was neither advocating for or against lockdowns. I'm advocating thoughtfulness of trade-offs, informed by (but not limited to) data; as opposed to rigid ideology, or knee-jerk gut reactions. And in particular: to recognize that even if one believes that the data of a specific real-world circumstance clearly favors one end of the spectrum, there are also circumstances where the data can break the other way. Therefore we need to be tolerant and open-minded to good-faith skepticism in either direction. The fact that a wrong answer can be fatal makes it all the more important to avoid what Daniel Schmachtenberger refers to as "limbic highjacking", or more colloquially, "being triggered" (which includes both fear of death, and fear of losing autonomy). > ends justifying the means... the trend of a growing security state It's also worth remembering that these are not mutually exclusive: that circumstances exist where the ends do justify the means, yet are also used as a cynical power grab with additional negative externalities. Again, the only way to know the difference is dispassionate discernment (what Julia Galef refers to as "scout mindset" rather than "soldier mindset" [0]). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8
mLuby 6y ago
Let's look not at all death rates over the past 10 years, but at deaths from COVID-19[1]: Norway [locked down]: 6.17 deaths/100K people Sweden [no lockdown]: 65.61 deaths/100K people [1] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality as of November 28, 2020 at 03:00 AM EST.

syshum 6y ago

The problem here is not really about a mask mandate, while some people piss and moan about wearing a mask the majority of people would not protest or outright risist such a mandate However like with all government actions there is always subjective enforcement, and over reaction to the point that is no longer about inconvenience of a mask, but out right prohibition on activity including the ability of one to provide for their family via voluntary exchange with others that want to provide for their families. I have had many debates with people that simply want the government to "pay people to stay home" all the while these people do not understand interdependent economics and how that is not possible in modern society. Such a measure when in fact collapse society not just at an economic level So again you are claiming this is just "reasonable government measure" to wear masks, but the reality on the ground is far far far far different where governments are ordering businesses to close completely, and imposing other far more draconian measures on public. if we are going to debate government response to COVID it must be about the governments ACTUAL, and ACTIVE response not simply about the non-controversial measures that have become controversial and politically precisely because of the over action and other draconian measures put into place by that very same government Your final argument "when the individual should be allowed to create mortal risk for others" is also a false one and a dangerous one. The other problem with your argument is that your position that Person A that leaves there home is involuntarily subjecting "everyone else" is possible sickness, yet everyone else has assumed some level of risk on themselves that they may be exposed to sickness, but is COVID or the Flu, or the common cold every time they interact with others. They also have the option to limit to eliminate their contact with others, just as Person A has that option. If both parties have voluntarily agreed to the interaction, then both parties have consented to that by assessing their own personal risk. For me, I have stopped in person shopping, stopped attending social and family events, etc. My risk assessments preclude me from participation in those things, however I have no either right to force other people to live under my personal risk assessment, thus if others choose a different path and want to take that person risk well that is on them This is all with out getting into the fact that the CDC data says there 99.97% survival rate for all Americans between the ages of 20-49. So the "mortal risk" you have used to ethically justify the government intervention is debatable as well, as if that is the bar for extreme government intervention then we no longer have any civil liberties at all and must impose complete Authoritarianism upon all