> About 60,000,000 people die every year, which is absolutely fine
Which is about half the japanese population. Or are we comparing apples to jetskis here?
There is more to death than numbers. 16.000 genocidal industrialized slaughterings or 16.000 targeted kindergarden assassinations are certainly something a free society cannot tolerate, while 16.000 dying of old age is something a free society has to tolerate because it is part of nature.
Now that we are clear what kind of deaths a free society has incentives to prevent for sure (genocides, assassinations) we can move on into murkier territory: Preventable pandemic deseases. Note the pandemic in there, it is the thing that makes the difference between "you lead an unhealthy lifestyle and now it comes back to haunt you" and "you did everything right, but your neighbour caughed in your face today". Being in a pandemic situation where everybody can potentially become another ones killer is a delicate situation for any form of society, but especially for a free one. But compared to the times of the black death it is much, much easier if you know what is killing you, how it is doing it and how to prevent people from getting it, either by organisational changes (lockdowns, mask mandates, home office) and/or by medical means (vaccinations).
Now any free society usually also values life itself. Preventable deaths are bad. Preventable pandemic death is worse, because it is not a fixed number ("x people get struck by lightning a year"), but a partially exponentially developing one.
I think it is totally rational for any kind of free society to:
- do more to avoid preventable death than unpreventable death (the easier this prevention is the bigger the moral duty to do sth)
- do more to avoid preventable pandemic death than preventable non-pandemic death (because logistic function)
The easier and the less side effects this prevention has the more moral mandate there is to do it.
Of course measures can go over the top as well. Politicians/corporations can abuse the situation to extend their powers and these are legitimate concerns.
Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
It is hard to form reasonable criticism in companionship of people who do as if a piece of cloth in front of their mouth is the most fundamental breach of human rights ever.
> Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
“X number of people will die” is an equally un-nuanced argument, and in the comment I was replying to above, it was the entirety of the argument they put forward.
It is possible to have a nuanced and properly considered discussion or debate about the intricacies of this topic. But on Facebook, you’re only allowed to do this if your perspective is on the list of approved perspectives. It’s the same for a lot of other social media outlets. Even if you don’t necessarily get banned, the idiots who are only capable of seeing black and white tend to do their best to drown out any opinions they don’t like.
Which is about half the japanese population. Or are we comparing apples to jetskis here?
There is more to death than numbers. 16.000 genocidal industrialized slaughterings or 16.000 targeted kindergarden assassinations are certainly something a free society cannot tolerate, while 16.000 dying of old age is something a free society has to tolerate because it is part of nature.
Now that we are clear what kind of deaths a free society has incentives to prevent for sure (genocides, assassinations) we can move on into murkier territory: Preventable pandemic deseases. Note the pandemic in there, it is the thing that makes the difference between "you lead an unhealthy lifestyle and now it comes back to haunt you" and "you did everything right, but your neighbour caughed in your face today". Being in a pandemic situation where everybody can potentially become another ones killer is a delicate situation for any form of society, but especially for a free one. But compared to the times of the black death it is much, much easier if you know what is killing you, how it is doing it and how to prevent people from getting it, either by organisational changes (lockdowns, mask mandates, home office) and/or by medical means (vaccinations).
Now any free society usually also values life itself. Preventable deaths are bad. Preventable pandemic death is worse, because it is not a fixed number ("x people get struck by lightning a year"), but a partially exponentially developing one.
I think it is totally rational for any kind of free society to:
- do more to avoid preventable death than unpreventable death (the easier this prevention is the bigger the moral duty to do sth)
- do more to avoid preventable pandemic death than preventable non-pandemic death (because logistic function)
The easier and the less side effects this prevention has the more moral mandate there is to do it.
Of course measures can go over the top as well. Politicians/corporations can abuse the situation to extend their powers and these are legitimate concerns.
Sadly nowadays they are filled with very un-nuanced, self-lying fundamentalist people ("My freedom to not wear a mask is more important than your freedom not to die") that are quite frankly right now the reason why this pandemic is still rolling.
It is hard to form reasonable criticism in companionship of people who do as if a piece of cloth in front of their mouth is the most fundamental breach of human rights ever.