Thursday, May 07, 2020

The coronavirus trolley problem



The coronavirus and governmental responses to it are one messy trolley problem. Should you sacrifice some to save others? No, I don't think you should. It's a fake choice.

As always, I think it's better to choose to do nothing than to make a forced choice to do something which will violate someone's life, liberty, or property. In fact, I believe that's usually the only responsible choice-- to refuse to be forced into a choice which will kill (or otherwise violate) others.

So, if a thug is holding me and some others at gunpoint and tells me I must choose who he shoots or he'll shoot us all, I think it would be wrong of me to cooperate and play his "game" (unless I saw a way to stall and turn the tables on him).

I get that I'm in the minority on this. Most people believe you've got to act, even if by acting you're going to sacrifice someone no matter what. That's also apparently the thinking behind v*ting. I don't buy it.

If my choice is to sacrifice Individual A or sacrifice Individual B, I may refuse to make any choice and let physics, biology, or chemistry do its thing. I accept I don't know enough to make choices for other people.

I also think you can't know which way is better in many cases. You might believe that by sacrificing Individual A you'll save lots of people, but it turns out you killed Individual A for nothing and people died anyway. Maybe more than otherwise would have. Everyone would have been better off if you didn't allow arrogance to cause you to make a choice that was never yours to make. Politicians (and often, the politically-minded non-politicians) are full of that kind of arrogance.

So, yes, I am saying that while I believe it would have been OK for government employees (as long as they exist anyway) to have made recommendations and suggestions aimed at reducing the coronavirus cases, it was unequivocally wrong of them to make and enforce any policies regarding the pandemic. By pulling that lever, they made a choice they had no right to make. Choosing who lives and who dies in such a case is NOT an "adult decision"; nothing is more childish and self-centered than to fall into that pit.

-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.

4 comments:

  1. I would not make the choice in your scenario either, because the bad guy is most likely gonna kill everyone so there are no live witnesses. Making the choice who goes first just gives him his jollies. Think of the "Saw" movies.

    In the face of such an imminent death, I would not beg to live, but get right in his face, grab his gun and put it to my forehead and say "FUCK YOU!!"

    Yeah...I am actually that nuts and impulsive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having never been in such a situation, I can't really say what I would do. I just know it wouldn't be right to play his game. Just like it was wrong of government to choose a path with coronavirus.

      Delete
    2. If you could grab his gun, why would you then not just shoot the asshole? You sound like a TV crime-show character, who knocks the bad guy down (or even out) and then runs, leaving him armed and recoverable...

      Delete
    3. Steve-- Shooting him would probably break some "law". How could we ever consider that option? ;)

      Delete