Beer
Well-Known Member
He knows they are not ok with it. But in the grand scheme of things he doesn't care if they are or not. He's taking a fairly straightforward utilitarian approach to the problem, stating, in essence, it is better to just allow a smaller portion of the population to die than for the bulk of the population to suffer. The major axiom he is espousing here is that all suffering is equal. So someone suffering from lack of a job is equal to someone else dying. So, to oversimplify, if you can save many jobs by allowing a few deaths, that tilts the scale in favor of allowing the deaths, since it alleviates the suffering of many but allowing the suffering of relatively few. It also gets to the core of many criticisms of utilitarianism, what is the value/cost of a human life? Frankly this concept is applied in very very many scenarios across society all the time. When the 737 maxes crashed society set a value on those lives by not requiring an infinite payment from Boeing. By imposing specific and ultimately limited "sanctions", both officially and societal (loss of stock value for example), "we" set an actual monetary value on the lives lost in those crashes. What he is proposing isn't terrible far removed from this concept, it's just more direct in it's valuing, or devaluing as it may be viewed, of life. And specifically lives he feels already have less value since they are potentially at risk anyway. It's pretty callous, yes, but a common way for people to assess these scenarios because we all feel our own suffering more acutely than the suffering of others, so it's human nature to view our own pleasure or suffering as equally or more important than others when from a purely objective standpoint that just isn't true.
I'd say you are about 80% right in what I'm thinking. And yes, I'll agree it's callous but, imo at least, it's far more logical than the save everyone at all costs approach.
1. First off, I do think certain lives are more valuable and or important than others. For example a 35 year old mother of 5 would be far more important to save than an 80 year old grandmother.
2. @leftyjace mentioned he would fall into the very vulnerable camp do to his weight, and age. Now I have no idea if he is just a little chunky or is actually very overweight or even obese. I'm not saying all the fat and old should run out and start licking everything to get COVID as fast as possible so they can be sacrificed. I'm saying they should be shouldering the brunt of this pandemic. They shouldn't be leaving the house unless absolutely necessary, they should be wearing 4 masks on top of each other and face guard, they should be injecting bleach into their veins, they should be washing their hands every 10 minutes.
The local restaurants should not be shut down. If you are vulnerable then sorry you don't get to enjoy delicious mole from Red Iguana for awhile. You don't get to go to Thanksgiving this year. You know, you get screwed but it makes a **** ton more sense for you to have to live by all these regulations than for the entire population to. Especially when it is pretty clear there isn't a whole lot we can do in the grand scheme of things. Unless we just make every single person stay inside for a few months.
3. So no, I don't want you to die even if you don't take care of yourself, or you were unlucky enough to be old right now, or you got a **** draw and were born with some immune system issues. I hope you do everything in your power to not get COVID so you can live to be as old as you please. I just don't think it's reasonable to ask everyone else in the world to have their lives turned upside down for you.
