Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

As our mothers told us, don't go walking onto the road!

If someone driving 100 miles an hour on a city street has a minor glitch or an unexpected obstacle, they can very easily wind up hitting properly driven or properly parked cars or running up onto the sidewalk.

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This graph may be out of date, it is certain those percentages have fallen further - but what it illustrates is just who are being sacrificed to whom.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

57 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Spreading disease can be the action of an individual.

Then a means to identify those who are spreading it should be deployed in order to apply a proper quarantine rationally. Again, an individual should be left free to determine what is best for his health and well being. If you think wearing a mask and steering clear of those who do not is prudent, you would be free to do so. Have your groceries delivered if you are concerned about supermarkets. Do not go to restaurants or gyms, or malls if you think doing so puts your health at a greater risk than you find acceptable for yourself. 

To hold a person accountable for spreading a disease, they have to have it. After that you can parse as to intentionality. 

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

It is the physical aggression I am taking umbrage with.

It is equivocating a force of nature with the initiation of physical force by an individual.

Quite. If we don't keep in mind the metaphysical given (a transmittable disease) distinct from the man-made (here, initiation of force) we give in to disingenuous equivocations. Force is physical and direct, done in knowledge of its consequences. The true force here is that committed upon the people by government - blanket lockdowns. (And, Gvt. force backed by those people who want it so decreed onto the whole populace).

On another tack, fear of the "invisible enemy", as the virus is touted, must morph into fear of other people and any random objects we might touch. I.e. The human "carriers" and things which *are* visible. That's the gist I notice of Doug Morris' concern, and the single greatest driver of lock downs - fearing others as one's mortal enemies.

When a society surrenders to their fears, you can rest assured that remnants of good will to others, disappears for the long haul. Only one more facet of what sacrificial policies achieve.

 

15 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

This virus seems to be deadlier and more contagious than the common flu.

Just so we're on the same page:

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

A snippet from the above article, a few facts not generally known I believe. The context varies enormously according to the nature of the virus/parasite/etc.. But for whatever the disease, I think the same principle holds :- When and if at risk, voluntarily self-protect; and naturally, protect the most vulnerable close to one.

Quote: "For many infectious diseases young children are most at risk. For instance, in the case of malaria, the majority of deaths (57% globally) are in children under five. The same was true for the largest pandemic in recorded history: During the ‘Spanish flu’ in 1918, children and young adults were at the greatest risk from the pandemic (we write more about this in the article here).

For COVID-19 cases the opposite seems to be true. The elderly are at the greatest risk of dying, if infected with this virus..."

(therefore our scientists have to be of the utmost dependability, identifying the nature of the outbreak we are faced with, as soon as possible. Our choices of actions rely on them - especially - to not under play or - usually - over blow the dangers).

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

"How many people die from the flu?

Seasonal flu is a viral infection that tends to start spreading in the fall and hits its peak during the winter months. It can continue into the springtime — even into May — and tends to dissipate in the summer months. While most cases of the flu resolve on their own, the flu can become life-threatening if complications like pneumonia arise alongside it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates there were a record-high 61,100 flu deaths [Trusted Source] in the United States in the 2017-2018 season."

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

One point people seem to be having difficulty grasping is that physically endangering other people can be physical aggression.  There are obvious examples involving guns and cars.  Diseases may be harder to grasp, but the principle can still apply.  If a person does not know whether or not they are infected, failure to take appropriate precautions endangers people.

Ayn Rand recognized that force can be indirect. 

An action taken in ignorance can still be a physical aggression.

We do not have to feel any fear to recognize the need for prudence.  whYNOT greatly exaggerates the psychological consequences of acknowledging the risk of infection.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

One point people seem to be having difficulty grasping is that physically endangering other people can be physical aggression.  There are obvious examples involving guns and cars.  Diseases may be harder to grasp, but the principle can still apply.  If a person does not know whether or not they are infected, failure to take appropriate precautions endangers people.

Ayn Rand recognized that force can be indirect. 

An action taken in ignorance can still be a physical aggression.

We do not have to feel any fear to recognize the need for prudence.  whYNOT greatly exaggerates the psychological consequences of acknowledging the risk of infection.  

Your way would be government force, DM.

Forced to 'do good' (to others). And there is precisely how we arrived at our nanny states. I see you prefer to have everyone regulated and controlled rather than independently make their own choices, but it is common, even among Objectivists, not uncommon, to blur the difference between simple consideration - or benevolence - for others ... and altruism. Even the modicum of displayed self-sacrifice looks 'good' and momentarily feels 'good', and that's its secret of persistence. Sacrificial actions controlled, demanded and expected of one will cause fear, resentment, dislike and disrespect for others, every time, and defeat one's good (chosen) will. A case made by Rand, too. Altruism negates one's own existence and mind. Assuming one can't see everywhere and in oneself the effects.

 

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

If a person does not know whether or not they are infected, failure to take appropriate precautions endangers people.

 

18 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

To hold a person accountable for spreading a disease, they have to have it. After that you can parse as to intentionality. 

whYNOT's concerns brings to mind  "Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?" from Atlas Shrugged.

While I can't cite all the logical connections, the morality of the denizens gives rise to the politics of the geographical areas they reside. What is unprecedented here is not the pandemic, rather the responses that offer insight to how far things are progressing or have progressed in another sequence offered in the same chapter. 

"Once, you believed it was 'only a compromise': you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.

My only responsibility is not to infringe the rights of others. Given the resources at my disposal, you still haven't demonstrated how I am or would be endangering others by a direct or indirect use of physical force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Very roughly, and there are always the outlier exceptions among the very young who succumb and some very old who will shrug off the infection (I suppose for one, that individual immune systems are highly variable) - but, simplistically - up until age 59, everybody should be out and about, fearlessly living their active lives. Others older can or should be more circumspect, according to their own experiences with their individual health.

(And for the pre-60's the fatality rate is no worse than the normal flu. Which in the US takes the lives of about 60,000 annually. Consider that number accruing for the last decade. About half a million died. A respectable number. Did anybody suggest a "lock down" for the flu season? Although again, hygienic and other precautions would be a good idea for those older who haven't been vaccinated.)

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

My only responsibility is not to infringe the rights of others. Given the resources at my disposal, you still haven't demonstrated how I am or would be endangering others by a direct or indirect use of physical force.

 

23 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

dream_weaver, if you wrongfully put someone at risk of getting a disease, that is physical force.  If you don't know whether you are infected, lack of precautions creates risk.  Germs are physical.

Will this approach produce a different insight?

What precautions have you (@Doug Morris) taken to ensure you haven't contracted CoViD-19 since the last time you ascertained you did not have the disease?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

whYNOT, taking reasonable precautions to avoid endangering others does not constitute self-sacrifice or altruism.

For example, watching out for pedestrians while driving does not constitute self-sacrifice or altruism.

So is anyone stopping you from masking up? Your choice.

Who's making me mask up, against my choice?

We must suffer no official or social pressure to conform to others' lives.

Once that wolf is allowed through the door, your life is not your own any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

up until age 59, everybody should be out and about, fearlessly living their active lives.

Spreading Covid-19 to a young person can lead to that person spreading it to an older person with whom they have contact, even if the older person is not out and about.

People can be fearlessly out and about and still take reasonable precautions to avoid spreading disease.

Putting people at risk is a way of sacrificing them.

Again, I am not advocating or defending lockdowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

What precautions have you (@Doug Morris) taken to ensure you haven't contracted CoViD-19 since the last time you ascertained you did not have the disease?

It is impossible to have an absolute guarantee of not being infected, except perhaps by being an absolute hermit for at least two weeks.  I am neither advocating that nor demanding absolute guarantees.

It is possible to take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk both of becoming infected oneself and of spreading the infection if one has caught it.

When I go out, I mask up, I avoid being too close to other people to the extent that I can, and I wash my hands thoroughly.  I also make use of disinfectant wipes when provided.

As long as the surge is on, I am not having lunches with friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Spreading Covid-19 to a young person can lead to that person spreading it to an older person with whom they have contact, even if the older person is not out and about.

 

Sure, teach them young. All other people are more important. To be feared, or fearful of killing them. Sounds about right.

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

Sure, teach them young. All other people are more important. To be feared, or fearful of killing them.

Taking reasonable precautions to avoid endangering other people does not constitute thinking of them or treating them as more important.

Watching out for pedestrians while I am driving does not constitute thinking of them or treating them as more important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

It is impossible to have an absolute guarantee of not being infected, except perhaps by being an absolute hermit for at least two weeks.  I am neither advocating that nor demanding absolute guarantees.

It is possible to take reasonable precautions to reduce the risk both of becoming infected oneself and of spreading the infection if one has caught it.

When I go out, I mask up, I avoid being too close to other people to the extent that I can, and I wash my hands thoroughly.  I also make use of disinfectant wipes when provided.

As long as the surge is on, I am not having lunches with friends.

If you do not know if you are infected, how do you ascertain if you wrongfully put someone at risk of getting a disease—i.e., initiated an indirect form of physical force—or not?

Another way of putting it: Why are you fretting about it?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

If you do not know if you are infected, how do you ascertain if you wrongfully put someone at risk of getting a disease—i.e., initiated an indirect form of physical force—or not?

If you do not know whether you are infected, there is risk.

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

Taking reasonable precautions to avoid endangering other people does not constitute thinking of them or treating them as more important.

Watching out for pedestrians while I am driving does not constitute thinking of them or treating them as more important.

DM, you would have it that children would all be masked up too, I guess. Not because they are at much more than the least risk, but because they must protect any one who may be? You must have seen them, or know of a few. Look at them out in that dangerous place called "In Public", their large eyes appearing over their masks, their paranoid parents having warned them, and nagging them, don't touch that; don't play with those kids; don't approach those adults. What kind of curious, inquiring, happy go lucky lives are they enjoying? You said I exaggerate the psychological consequences. Truth is I haven't touched the surface, but here's one stab of prediction. For anything up to the next 50 years today's children will be lining up outside psychotherapists rooms and probably addicted to all manner of substances.  And paranoid over their own kids, and... and so on. The far-reaching psychological costs for a society amount also to sacrifices.

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

DM, you would have it that children would all be masked up too, I guess. Not because they are at much more than the least risk, but because they must protect any one who may be? You must have seen them, or know of a few. Look at them out in that dangerous place called "In Public", their large eyes appearing over their masks, their paranoid parents having warned them, and nagging them, don't touch that; don't play with those kids; don't approach those adults. What kind of curious, inquiring, happy go lucky lives are they enjoying? You said I exaggerate the psychological consequences. Truth is I haven't touched the surface, but here's one stab of prediction. For anything up to the next 50 years today's children will be lining up outside psychotherapists rooms and probably addicted to all manner of substances.  And paranoid over their own kids, and... and so on. The far-reaching psychological costs for a society amount also to sacrifices.

No sacrifices on their part are too great when his precious serenity is attached to the matter.

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...