Has the epidemic fundamentally changed our values?

Over the past two years, our lives have changed in ways that we have never before experienced. In the face of this epidemic, we have had to obey the new rules required and accept the new risks, making major changes in our daily lives.

These disruptions can challenge us to think differently about ethics - about what we owe each other.

As we enter the third year of the epidemic, disputes continue to escalate over the code of conduct, the limits of civil liberties, the limits of government power, and the unequal distribution of policies around the world.

With so many disagreements about questions like these, has the epidemic really changed the way we think about morals?

Ethics values became more prominent

---

Image source

In daily life, moral decisions are often out of the question. We can often just walk along.

But the epidemic changed all that. It highlighted our human communication and the consequences of our actions to others. It has re-introduced the basic rules of life: whether we can work or study, where we can go, who we can visit.

Because the rules were rewritten, we had to find out where we stood on all sorts of questions:

• is it OK – or even obligatory – to “dob” on rule-breakers?

• is it morally wrong to ignore social distancing rules or refuse a newly developed vaccine?

• how far can our freedoms be rightly restricted in the name of the public interest and the greater good?

At one time, politicians tried to undermine these ethical questions by insisting that they "just follow the science". But there is no such thing. Even where science is irrefutable, political decision-making is inevitably informed by value decisions about justice, life, rights, security, and freedom.

Eventually, the epidemic makes thinking and behavioral discussions more prevalent than ever before - a change that may surpass the virus itself. This in itself may be beneficial, prompting us to think seriously about our moral assumptions.

Who can you trust?

---

Image source

Trust has always been important in morality. However, the epidemic has further fueled questions of reliance on the day-to-day decision-making process.

We all had to make judgments about government, scientists, news and journalists, “big pharmacies”, and social media. The stand we take about the integrity of the people we have never met is crucial to the laws we will adopt.

Another good thing about honesty is that it is tested. Over time, evidence can confirm or disprove the notion that supposes, the government is honest about its legal health advice but is unreliable regarding the protection of online privacy in contract tracking applications.

Perhaps even more important, the general concern throughout the epidemic was the unprecedented speed with which these vaccines were developed and adopted. As evidence of its safety and effectiveness continues to grow, rapidly developing vaccines can be easily relied upon in the event of subsequent health emergencies.

Legitimacy, time and power of administration

---

When we think about the values of the law or the law, there are many questions we can ask ourselves.

Is it okay? Does it work? Were we touched by it? Can we understand it? Does he treat us like adults? Is it used properly?
In the event of an epidemic, it turns out that bringing good answers to these questions requires an important resource: time.

The development of inclusive, informative, confidential, and fair laws is difficult when urgent responses are needed. It is even more challenging when our understanding of the situation - and the situation itself - is rapidly changing.

This does not excuse you from making foolish political decisions. But it does mean that leaders can be forced to make difficult decisions when no other sensible solution is offered. As they do, we all have to face the reality of life in a sinless world.

All of this raises important questions for the future. Will we become so absorbed in governance that governments feel compelled to restrict our freedom and resist the urge to relinquish power?

On the other hand, in view of the huge costs and disruptions that governments have put in place to combat the epidemic, is there a clear moral obligation to integrate similar resources to combat slower disasters such as climate change?

Ethics and expectations

---

Image source

Expectations, in the sense of predicting the future, are rarely at the forefront of our thinking.

Yet, as 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued, distraction is a natural challenge because human beings build their lives on what they expect. We make decisions, investments, and plans based on our expectations, and tailor your interests around you.

When that expectation is broken, we may not only lose material possessions but also lose our independence and “efficiency” - or our apparent ability to navigate the world.

This plays in a few ways in the context of the policy mandate.

For example, it is not wrong to have strange beliefs and values, as long as you follow the rules. But this creates problems when a new type of regulation is put into effect.

A person with strong anti-vaccine beliefs (or even doubts about a vaccine) should undoubtedly never be a nurse or a doctor. But they can also expect their ideas to be the same as if they were a football player or a builder.

Although there are strong ethical reasons for supporting vaccination regulations, the collapse of human health expectations is still costly. Some people may be fired from jobs for which they have built their lives. Some may have lost sight of the fact that their future was predictable, and their lives were in their hands.

CC: @crypto.piotr @project.hope @lanzjoseg @josevas217 @achim03

Looking forward to your responses : )

CHEERS,
@TEKY

Note: 50% of the post Beneficiary set to the @PH-FUND account