Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:It Is Not 'Self-Interest' to Take Illness Lightly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The scientists and medics and so on, are the ones who do the serious combating.

But the rest of us can have a contribution to make as well.

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

instead the zoonotic carrier, a human animal, becomes the feared/hated 'enemy' by transference

We can recognize the role of carriers and the need for anyone who might be a carrier to take precautions without fearing or hating carriers or possible carriers or thinking of them or treating them as enemies.  If some people are reacting excessively or inappropriately, we should reject those excesses without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You didn't catch it from HIM or HER, by their evil acts - you caught a natural infection, full stop.

Again, you are blowing off the issue of unnecessarily increasing risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Defiant Michigan UP cafe owner told to shut down after serving indoor diners Since November, bars and restaurants in Michigan have been limited to carry-out service or outdoor dining in an effort

This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom. I.e.: The top half to the bottom half of people.

Interacting with people in public without any symptoms of disease or infection isn’t dangerous to the public. The masks worn by the majority of the public have little or no medical efficacy. The

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Forceful harm can be done to one completely accidentally, as with a truck ahead on the road which suddenly swerves into your path. You could call him a damn fool, but the driver wasn't 'out to get you', personally - to infringe on your rights.

If the truck driver swerves through negligence or recklessness, either in driving or in maintaining his vehicle, he has violated your rights, even if he has no intention of doing so, even if he wasn't 'out to get you', personally, and even if he would be horrified at any harm done to you.

 

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

One person claims that the protocols/harsh laws are impeding his freedom to lead a proper life of quality, another claims the protocols are allowing many their rights to go on living. How can there be a dichotomy between life and living?

Nobody proves anything by simply making a claim.  We must rationally analyze the claims and determine the truth.  There is never a dichotomy between life and living.  We must rationally determine where to draw the line between one person's rights and another's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If the truck driver swerves through negligence or recklessness, either in driving or in maintaining his vehicle, he has violated your rights, even if he has no intention of doing so, even if he wasn't 'out to get you', personally, and even if...

Does one have "the right" to not be involved in a traffic accident?

Please keep this straight. What I said: "one doesn't have the right to NOT be infected".

I have not implied or stated that someone has the right to infect you.

But what happens if you (or I) catch Covid? Are you going to investigate any likely suspects for the one who "violated your rights"? Then do what? In the improbable event you can find and prove who he/she is? Blame him? Lay charges against her?

It would hardly enter my mind. (A slight possibility I had contracted the virus a while back, I took it easy at home and didn't consider more than briefly about where or who from).

I'd said to you much earlier rights are not going to be of help here.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

 

  There is never a dichotomy between life and living. 

I am glad you agree DM...

However, "life" has been and is being sacrificed to the "living".

Put another way, *not dying* has been elevated to the Number One - and No. 2 - priority, not, *the life and living*.

When was there anything so rotten as what has been done to people who are highly unlikely to/never going to die from coronavirus?

Who was it called altruism the death cult?

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But what happens if you (or I) catch Covid? Are you going to investigate any likely suspects for the one who "violated your rights"? Then do what? In the improbable event you can find and prove who he/she is? Blame him? Lay charges against her?

I would grant you that a one size fits all lock down has it's immorality, but you are still using the concept "rights" inappropriately to make your point.

If you can prove that you were infected by someone, the way an insurance claim assigns blame and gets compensation, yes, definitely. You are within your rights to legally blame, punish, get compensation etc.

That is at the core of the argument to have free market forces deal with Covid. Instead of a lockdown, protection of rights would be through legal means between parties. As in right now, Germany is suing China for their "increasing risk" to others.

If you are arguing liability does not apply at all, then the free market, as far as insurance goes, can offer no help against these types of problems. If there is no liability then you can sneeze on someone and be protected by the law.

If and only if there was liability would members of a society voluntarily take preventative measures in increasing risk for others. Are you arguing that there is no liability and there can be no liability because it is not practical?

I personally find your reluctance to say "you have a right not to be infected by another" pretty outrageous, in fact immoral.

If no one is ever liable for Covid (as it seems to be right now), the legal framework that makes a free market solve these kinds of problems would have no efficacy. We see the resulting governmental policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If and only if there was liability would members of a society voluntarily take preventative measures in increasing risk for others. Are you arguing that there is no liability and there can be no liability because it is not practical?

I personally find your reluctance to say "you have a right not to be infected by another" pretty outrageous, in fact immoral.

If no one is ever liable for Covid (as it seems to be right now), the legal framework that makes a free market solve these kinds of problems would have no efficacy. We see the resulting governmental policies.

How does "increasing the risk" play out? Who defines what increasing/decreasing risky behavior is? Apart from the vanishingly low possibility of proving liability, the millions of liability suits citing this person or that, could take years to settle, mostly get thrown out and tie up the Justice system. For what ends? To gain satisfaction? To get pay back, of a sort? Punishment?

I have said and I maintain that still, that the responsibility one has and can count upon, is to be SELF-responsible. Or: I take care of me and my grandma as do you. If I consider myself at risk, I will lay low, isolate or cover myself, and never consider pressuring anyone to do the same. To do so would be "self-lessness" on my part.

(And hopefully I don't have to keep emphasizing, that it's rational to be respectful of others property rights, courteously accepting of others preferences when engaging with them - etc. etc.)

If one takes reality to be one's only authority, inclusive of the reality of human beings and the myriad things that could and will inadvertently occur to transmit and re-transmit a disease - and considering all these forced protocols are evidently imperfect (at best) - NO ONE can rationally state "you have a right not to be infected". The virus is a natural phenomenon not a loaded weapon waved around by an identifiable individual. 

It's odd that the sovereignty of the individual needs to be mentioned. Many people I know, hear and read of, who have little clue of Objectivist ethics, have conviction in individual choices, self-responsibility, self-ownership and the moral right to be left alone.

The rising victim/victimizer mentality is what we are observing during this pandemic. A clear off-shoot of social metaphysics, or simply "the blame game", that had earlier already seeped into every culture everywhere. A victimology that can be understood under the broad category, 'other-ism'.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I made a mistake here. I thought that 300k was one percent of the US population. In theory that will be the death toll.

But 3 million would have been the death toll (1 percent) and that would have been seen as unacceptable. If one could make the argument successfully that "if this was handled by the free market, the death toll would have been the same or less", that could change minds. Sweden seems to have backed off from their experiment. So the question still remains what has been the ultimate cost of lock downs from a statistical utilitarian perspective.

The question is still open because South Korea was the other success story but is having an outbreak.

Per https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries                              
Cumulative deaths and cases as of 12/30/2020                                
                                
   USA:    deaths     350,778        cases    19,982,441        population    331,970,957
        deaths/pop.    0.1057%        deaths/cases    1.7554%        cases/pop.    6.0193%
                                
Taiwan:    deaths        7               cases    797                    population    23,838,343
      deaths/pop.    0.0000%        deaths/cases    0.8783%        cases/pop.    0.0033%
                                
S. Korea:    deaths     879            cases    59773               population    51291276
       deaths/pop.    0.0017%        deaths/cases    1.4706%        cases/pop.    0.1165%
                                
Sweden:    deaths     8,727        cases    437,379              population    10,130,672
      deaths/pop.    0.0861%        deaths/cases    1.9953%        cases/pop.    4.3174%

Taiwan has the best success story. The Taiwanese people are more aware of China, its government, its people, and earlier pandemics than any other country's people are. In my opinion, the Taiwanese people acted in concert akin to a well-informed group of people aware of themselves and others. They knew what they needed to do and acted accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If and only if there was liability would members of a society voluntarily take preventative measures in increasing risk for others.

 

Forced to 'do good' because of the threat of liability consequences. "Voluntarily" is self-contradictory.

That's not a free and benevolent society, it's a nervous and litigious one.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, merjet said:

Taiwan has the best success story. The Taiwanese people are more aware of China, its government, its people, and earlier pandemics than any other country's people are. In my opinion, the Taiwanese people acted in concert akin to a well-informed group of people aware of themselves and others. They knew what they needed to do and acted accordingly.

What did Taiwan know to do, and how have they acted differently? 

Corona viruses do not spread as easily in warmer temperatures. Taiwan's "winter" occurs December-February and doesn't get much cooler than 45º F, meaning they have yet to experience their bad season with COVID19.

Cases are still only those confirmed, not actual, and reported deaths are dubious at best. A more accurate COVID19 death rate guess would compare all reported deaths for all causes over years and see if there's anything noticeable. There was no spike in overall deaths for all causes with any country comparison I've seen so far, and many countries experienced fewer overall deaths this year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It's odd that the sovereignty of the individual needs to be mentioned.

It doesn't need to be mentioned, so you can stop doing it (you spent 104 posts doing this, for the most part). I think the only point was that spreading disease *can* be initiation of force. The further claim was that if liability didn't exist for spreading disease, no one would bother to take preventive measures voluntarily. I don't agree with the second claim, but the first one makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If and only if there was liability would members of a society voluntarily take preventative measures in increasing risk for others. Are you arguing that there is no liability and there can be no liability because it is not practical?

Guessing, you meant “take preventative measures in not increasing (decreasing) risk for others.“ If that is correct, then I can apply it to driving as follows. I will heed the 45 mph speed limit and thereby not increase risk to other drivers or pedestrians rather than drive 80 mph and endanger other drivers or pedestrians.

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

How does "increasing the risk" play out? Who defines what increasing/decreasing risky behavior is? Apart from the vanishingly low possibility of proving liability, the millions of liability suits citing this person or that, could take years to settle, mostly get thrown out and tie up the Justice system. For what ends? To gain satisfaction? To get pay back, of a sort? Punishment?

whYNOT’s response makes no sense when applied to my driving example. That’s because "not increasing the risk" means not driving, say, 80 mph in a 45 mph zone and thereby creating liability by driving dangerously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It doesn't need to be mentioned, so you can stop doing it (you spent 104 posts doing this, for the most part). I think the only point was that spreading disease *can* be initiation of force. The further claim was that if liability didn't exist for spreading disease, no one would bother to take preventive measures voluntarily. I don't agree with the second claim, but the first one makes sense.

If you're talking about my post, liability is not about preventive measures, as in personal prevention, i.e. protecting yourself. But it is the core motivator in a free market in protection of others, because it is to your benefit.

Enforcement of justice is not an initiation of force. Market forces are not the involuntary forces that Tony is conflating, like a lot of leftist do. The force or your stomach aching for food is not initiation of force. Higher prices for hospital beds and masks is also not an initiation of force. Liability prosecution is not an initiation of force, it is a response to initiation of force.

Liability is the other side of ownership. It is accountability. Without liability, there is no accountability. Without enforcement of accountability law and order becomes meaningless.

In fact to say that it can be initiation of force but not liability would make initiation of force inconsequential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JASKN said:

What did Taiwan know to do, and how have they acted differently? 

Corona viruses do not spread as easily in warmer temperatures. Taiwan's "winter" occurs December-February and doesn't get much cooler than 45º F, meaning they have yet to experience their bad season with COVID19.

I wasn’t aware of Taiwan’s weather pattern. I was referring to the SARS pandemic of 2003. I wasn’t in Taiwan then, but I did do a stopover in Hong Kong in 2003. All or most Asians I saw were wearing masks because of SARS. I was also referring to the Taiwanese people being wary about the behavior of people of mainland China, such as suppressing info about the coronavirus.

Returning to Taiwan’s weather. Let’s accept your hypothesis tying coronavirus risk to colder weather. Per weather.com, Taiwan’s lower temperatures are Nov-Mar. Nov 2019 – Mar 2020 is past. Taiwan did experience a surge in new cases in Mar 2020. Nov 2020 – Mar 2021 is now underway. Taiwan has experienced a surge in new cases in Nov and Dec 2020. Link

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It doesn't need to be mentioned, so you can stop doing it (you spent 104 posts doing this, for the most part). I think the only point was that spreading disease *can* be initiation of force. The further claim was that if liability didn't exist for spreading disease, no one would bother to take preventive measures voluntarily. I don't agree with the second claim, but the first one makes sense.

I don't need to stop doing anything which points to the essential thing that matters, in and out of a pandemic, an individual has the right to his freedom of action. Ultimately by the standard of value, man's life, and for the individual's purpose. If that is agreed upon the rest follows. No lock downs, also against compulsory masking and social distancing. Protect yourself, where necessary or by choice, but do not expect or demand from others to protect you (away from your property). One has not that right. Have you seen that demonstrably agreed with? I have suggested before, Eiuol, nobody has the insight into others minds to speak for everyone else. This is then post #105 in that vein.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merjet said:

Guessing, you meant “take preventative measures in not increasing (decreasing) risk for others.“ If that is correct, then I can apply it to driving as follows. I will heed the 45 mph speed limit and thereby not increase risk to other drivers or pedestrians rather than drive 80 mph and endanger other drivers or pedestrians.

whYNOT’s response makes no sense when applied to my driving example. That’s because "not increasing the risk" means not driving, say, 80 mph in a 45 mph zone and thereby creating liability by driving dangerously.

That's not my driving example which is much more relevant. If highway traffic is running at 45 mph, and any steady speed, you don't have the right to wander into the road. You can't expect every driver to see you in time and to swerve out of the way. You don't have the right to not get injured. You can't claim liability if you are. You can't appeal to "non-initiation of force".

Did the traffic 'increase the risk' for this pedestrian, or was it his own action that did so? *Who* was acting dangerously?

The insane alternative is to outlaw all the (~selfish~) "drivers" because of some people wishing to walk on the roads but stay unhurt. As in having their cake and eating it. Oh right, that's the option we were landed with.

(To be clearer, the pedestrian is the person with comorbidities (etc.) who should not be out and about on the "roads", in public among productive, able-bodied people if he values his health and longevity).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4DT1ZQmTTc

Some pretty good thoughts by Peter Hitchens, who knows the economic sacrifice when he sees it (and the symbolism of masks ...) and a cross-over from pandemic into the culture war and politics.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

That's not my driving example which is much more relevant. If highway traffic is running at 45 mph, and any steady speed, you don't have the right to wander into the road. You can't expect every driver to see you in time and to swerve out of the way. You don't have the right to not get injured. You can't claim liability if you are. You can't appeal to "non-initiation of force".

Please tell us how your driving example is at all analogous to the coronavirus, wearing a mask, or getting Covid. Exactly whom are you trying to defend or attack regarding the latter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, merjet said:

Please tell us how your driving example is at all analogous to the coronavirus, wearing a mask, or getting Covid. Exactly whom are you trying to defend or attack regarding the latter?

I defend those whose lives are being sacrificed. As if the pandemic isn't bad enough, everybody has to pay the highest price with their virtual imprisonment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Have you seen that demonstrably agreed with?

The entire time. I don't know how you miss it. Easy Truth made a pretty simple and straightforward claim that liability is an important and legitimate motivator for choosing to minimize risk. An increase in risk does not necessarily mean forces been initiated, only that you are more likely to cause an incident that causes forceful damage to people or property. You can take a risk if you want, but if something goes wrong, it would be your fault, and you would have to pay for the damage in some way. That's liability. Of course, you might be able to get away with it, or it may be difficult to gather information to demonstrate that someone particular is at fault, but liability still can exist. It's no different than the idea that if you initiate force, you are liable (in the sense that the one who initiates is at fault for causing the damage), and therefore can pay whatever consequence deemed appropriate by the law.

If nothing goes wrong, you got lucky and nothing needs to be done. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I defend those whose lives are being sacrificed. As if the pandemic isn't bad enough, everybody has to pay the highest price with their virtual imprisonment.

If a vulnerable person chooses to shun social contact to avoid exposure to the coronavirus, that "self-imprisonment." It is a high cost, but survival is the greater good, I assume.

Edited by merjet
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

If a vulnerable person chooses to shun social contact to avoid exposure to the coronavirus, that "self-imprisonment." It is a high cost, but survival is the greater good.

I wrote "virtual imprisonment" not self-imprisonment. I am talking about forced sacrifice not sensible, self-protective measures by the vulnerable. I will repeat because you obviously haven't been reading this thread and misunderstand my stance. Here: The younger, healthy and capable, the large majority of any population who are at NO risk from Covid, are being forcibly sacrificed, of their businesses, livelihoods and aspirations and mental health and schooling, to old farts like you and I - so we don't get sick and die. I do NOT consent to and accept their sacrifice. Let the elderly and sickly take care of themselves and/or be cared for and quarantined by their families; screw the maskers ever-so nobly protecting them. I for one don't need their self-aggrandizing, 'loving', gestures of support. To those older ones who are actually ¬grateful¬ to the sacrificers for causing such suffering on their behalf, throwing away the economies and wrecking the world - so you might live longer - you too are morally culpable for acquiescing to the pain caused to many millions of innocent others, now and in the future.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The younger and able, the large majority of any population who are at NO risk of Covid, are being forcibly sacrificed, of their businesses, livelihoods and aspirations and mental health and schooling

I don't think there is any disagreement there.

Tony, if you are arguing that the most vulnerable (those at highest risk) should pay the highest cost, be it in isolation, mask, sterilization of surrounding, medicine cost, delivery of food etc. I would agree. It would sound heartless to the altruistic, but their protection expenses are in fact their responsibility to take care of. Others should not be forced to. I doubt anyone here would disagree.

But sometimes you seem to be arguing that we have freedoms such as:

  • you can sneeze on others without consequence at all (i.e. why were you there in the first place)
  • "Freely" set up super spreader events where some people don't know the consequence
  • Hide the truth about your being infectious and interact physically
  • Freedom to not voluntarily quarantine and potentially causing transmission when you are sick
  • Refusal to quarantine when you in fact are infected and transmissible

    
This is the area where the "right to NOT be infected" becomes applicable. The right to self defense through prosecution has to exist, it is not altruism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I wrote "virtual imprisonment" not self-imprisonment. I am talking about forced sacrifice not sensible, self-protective measures by the vulnerable.

Okay.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

To those older ones who are actually ¬grateful¬ to the sacrificers for causing such suffering on their behalf, throwing away the economies and wrecking the world - so you might live longer - you too are morally culpable for acquiescing to the pain caused to many millions of innocent others, now and in the future.

Why the switcheroo? You start referring to "those older ones", then switch midstream to "you", i.e. me. I am not one of those you attack, whether your attack was intended or not. Please show a little more respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The risk of complications increase for those over 65 years of age CoViD-19. Some in that age group support the sacrifices advocated, others in that age group do not.

Those supporting the sacrifices advocated are morally culpable.

Thee, thou, thy, thine and ye have been dropped in favor of the more equivocal 'you' and 'your' which tend to straddle the singular/plural fence.

It appears that whYNOT, and others, may not be as sensitized to that distinction. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...