Jump to content

Coronavirus

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Albert The Cat.

My apologise for the large type-it just happened.

 

 

Every individual counts as having equal value .

 

Consequently, ethically one cannot sacrifice another in order to secure our well -being.

Utilitarianism is the brainchild of J.S Mill and J.Bentham 

To sacrifice the elderly for the well- being of the rest of society, is to treat them inhumanely and to strip them of their right to life.Such actions are unjust.

 

What is wrong with Utilitarianism..

“ It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest. Utilitarianism requires that one commit unjust actions in certain situations, and because of this it is fundamentally flawed. Some things ought never to be done, regardless of the positive consequences that may ensue.”

 

Source: Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/ethics-everyone/201506/whats-wrong-utilitarianism

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Albert The Cat.

My apologise for the large type-it just happened.

 

 

Every individual counts as having equal value .

 

Consequently, ethically one cannot sacrifice another in order to secure your well -being.

Utilitarianism is the brainchild of J.S Mill and J.Bentham 

To sacrifice the elderly for the well- being of the rest of society, is to treat them inhumanely and to strip them of their right to life.Such actions are unjust.

 

What is wrong with Utilitarianism..

“ It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest. Utilitarianism requires that one commit unjust actions in certain situations, and because of this it is fundamentally flawed. Some things ought never to be done, regardless of the positive consequences that may ensue.”

 

Source: Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/ethics-everyone/201506/whats-wrong-utilitarianism

I think what we could actually do with right now is a large dose of altruism. 

Edited by nikki-red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Key workers.

 

My husband is a mechanic and his company are ploughing on regardless. He wears overalls, which we wash weekly and gloves. They have no sanitizer there yet he handles customer cars and keys etc. The skinflint bosses also told them they only pay 7 days sick pay for this issue. 

Seemingly mechanics are required yet footballers and celebs who can take 3 months off and afford it are not required. To us 3 months would be life changing for our finances. I'm severely disabled so at high risk too. Time for government to recognise who are really needed on this planet and reward those unsung heroes appropriately. It wouldn't hurt for some of our overpaid entertainment and sports people and wealthy execs safely working at home to recognise this. Send some cash to your local people who are having to work and putting themselves and their family at risk. If these skills go, the rich won't have their Mercedes to drive around in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Albert the Cat said:

That is exactly what they didn't do. Their initial and very laughable approach last Friday to this pandemic was getting at least 60% of the people infected to somehow build a herd immunity among the population. Well, the scientific community and the WHO roundly criticised the government for advocating such a reckless approach. Then Imperial College release their modelling study for the UK and US and the government pretty much perform a complete U turn. We are acting weeks later than expected. We will pay in the form of unnecessary deaths. 

Agreed.  A week or two ago the government had to choose between (a) allowing thousands of mostly old and/or infirm people to die (the "herd immunity strategy") or (b) drastic WWII-style authoritarian measures leading to a severe economic downturn that would require some postwar-style collectivist policies to eventually get back out of.  They chose (a), but it now looks as though we're going to get both (a) and (b).

 

Of course I still hope that we can avoid (a).

Share this post


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

Every individual counts as having equal value .

 

Consequently, ethically one cannot sacrifice another in order to secure our well -being.

Utilitarianism is the brainchild of J.S Mill and J.Bentham 

To sacrifice the elderly for the well- being of the rest of society, is to treat them inhumanely and to strip them of their right to life.Such actions are unjust.

 

What is wrong with Utilitarianism..

“ It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest. Utilitarianism requires that one commit unjust actions in certain situations, and because of this it is fundamentally flawed. Some things ought never to be done, regardless of the positive consequences that may ensue.”

 

Source: Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/ethics-everyone/201506/whats-wrong-utilitarianism

There's also "negative utilitarianism", which focuses on the minimization of suffering rather than the maximization of happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a

Captain Swing,

You are absolutely correct .

I subscribe to Prima Facie Duty Ethics.

To treat all citizens as having equal worth.

 

 

Avoids the troublesome happiness and unhappiness states of being.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem at the moment is there is no incentive for workers to go home and isolate the benefit system is broken  and  while no incentive the virus gets worse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just seen that the odious Tim Martin is refusing to close down his vomit and bleach smelling Wetherspoons pubs.

 

Could this be social engineering at its finest?  

 

I guess he has based his decision on the fact that the pee-stained, yellow-toothed zombies who populate places like Bankers Draft are already close to the grave, so it doesn't much matter and he might as well grab their last few quid while he can.

Edited by bendix

Share this post


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

https://www.ft.com/content/c0755b30-69bb-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3 

 

Germany's figures are interesting - high infection rate but few deaths. More ventilators and ICU beds but also much more testing increasing diagnosis rates. 

I hate to bring cultural stereotyping into it, but could there be a link?  Germany is often referred to as rigid and regimental.  Are their people just following guidelines to the letter?

 

Italy always strikes me as a pretty laid back country, certainly when it comes to following rules and paying, and now their death toll is higher than China's.

 

Is China's strict ruling partly the reason?

 

As for the UK, although we're panic buying, we are quietly queuing like decent Englishfolk! (until the doors open)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.