Sam Harris and Paul Bloom are talking. Bloom refers to a statement by a politician that you can't put a value on a human life. But, he says, we do every day. Consider speed limits. If you want to prevent as many deaths as possible, you lower speed limits. This is absolutely certain. It's not a matter of opinion. We could save thousands of lives a year by reducing speed limits in towns to 5mph and on motorways to 30mph, for example. Really. Thousands of lives. But the boredom of sitting in a car! People just wouldn't agree to that. We value getting to places faster more than thousands of lives every year.
Put in those terms, we are all sociopaths and those of us who break the speed limit (because every increase of speed is an increase in the statistical chance of causing death) are psychopaths. We place more value in our convenience, time, fun and freedom than in those who die or are injured on our roads. Or, to put this in a different frame, we make these kind of judgments by balancing lives against interests of human flourishing. To condemn millions of drivers to interminable journeys is adjudged to be worse than the consequent loss of life.
Now that there's a pandemic sweeping across the globe, the value of a life is placed in stark relief. Any suggestions that the economic implications can have any moral significance right now are understandably denounced. However, a death is a death is a death and some researchers make the claim that a deep recession (a 6.4% or greater decrease in per head GDP) would lead to more deaths than are saved by a prolonged shutdown. Germany is already predicting a 7.2% decrease. Our intuition tells us that to cause more people to die during this wave of the pandemic - through increased exposure and greater pressure on the health services - would be immoral and utterly inappropriate. I share that intuition. But the increased deaths that could be caused by a deep recession, which are manifested statistically by a decrease in average life expectancy, might well be the deaths of the very same vulnerable categories of people who are under the greatest threat now. An algorithm would not share our intuition and it might specify a different approach, boosting economic activity and lessening containment and restrictions. It would seem inhuman - but the long-term effects might be less bad. Or maybe not. How can one - human or algorithm - guarantee anything? It seems to make sense to go with our intuitions.
But is that really the best option? Our intuitions are often seriously flawed. How do we think this out? Does morality come down to our emotional reactivity - deaths right now are more emotionally salient than deaths in two or five years time - or is there a way to come to a better balance?
Some claim that better preparation and faster action would have lessened both the number of deaths and the economic implications. Well, the funds for preparedness would have to have come from somewhere (though a strong welfare state does seem to provide a buffer - compare Mauritius to other African nations) and as for the shutdown, I can't see how the costs of that could have been lessened by being more prepared to shut down. That said, it seems likely that it would have lessened the potential death toll from the coronavirus - which would, without doubt, have been better. Cuba was more rapid in its response than many other nations - it was exemplary - and yet the poverty of the nation is working against their impressive preparedness. Greece, which has suffered years of financial cuts and where the health service was almost broken, has, though, through centralised planning, somehow managed to keep its death toll low. Perhaps the country's familiarity with crises made them more open to considering the reality of this one.
Because, bear in mind that at the point when politicians, with their greater interest - for various benevolent as well as self-serving reasons - in GDP might have, in the early stages, been less moved by the salience of the initial slower rate of deaths than by the impact on the economy long term. Again, that's an emotional intuition based on their interests and what was 'in front of their eyes'. It is a very human, a universally human response, to deny and disbelieve things that don't fit with the existing mental model. It's something that we all do every day - just with far less damaging consequences. And it is a similar problem, in reverse, to seeing the current death toll as more salient than a future death toll.
It is also worth considering that 'following the science' is not a single straightforward concept that guarantees the best possible outcome. The effectiveness of such a policy can depend on a) which science one follows and b) whether that science is actually correct. There is some moral merit, though no consolation to those affected and paying with their lives, if, having been mistaken in either a) or b) one then changes one's mind, as the UK government did over 'herd immunity'.
There is also increasing evidence that the pandemic is essentially increasing the existing harms of social injustice. Minorities and poor people who cannot afford not to work or who are more greatly represented among those who cannot stop work (sanitation workers, delivery line workers, shop and storehouse workers and so on) are at greater risk than 'lap-top jockeys' who can work from home or people wealthy enough, like me, to cover an extended period out of work (albeit by sapping my savings). Women are more often among those nursing and in care homes. Those in countries without effective health care, those without homes, those in refugee camps and so on are all more likely to pay with their lives. Those in areas with high air pollution are also more at risk due to the existing damage to their respiratory system.
The crimes of the past are not restricted to when our Governments chose to shut down activity. This argument is made very cogently by Bryan Mukandi on his blog. I highly recommend you read it. He is responding to medical ethicists whom, he claims, see the pandemic as a problem arising in a just world where the decisions as to who gets a ventilator are treated atemporally, on their our terms, according to present needs. Regarding the devastating decisions medical staff have to make when need outstrips resources, this video of an interview with Italian doctor Marco Vergano is emotionally testing but also courageously honest.
It's also relevant that it is vulnerable people, who have already been at the receiving end of social injustice, that will suffer more from the shutdown. Women in violent relationships, or without access to contraception and abortion. People whose jobs will not be there after the pandemic because the businesses have not been able to sustain the hiatus in trading - waiters and shop staff, cleaning staff in hotels and small businesses. Millions of people who depend on their weekly wage for food and housing costs will not have work.
This is not a matter of death, but it is a matter of human flourishing. That too has a value. For example, it is important that a child from a poor family has the chance of an education. She will not have that chance if her family are destitute. How can we weigh up the cost of the loss of opportunity, the increase in hardship and the increased chances of criminal behaviour and mental and physical health issues as a result of a severe depression?
The purpose of this is not to state a case. I don't know what I think. I think different things depending on what evidence is placed in front of me. What I do believe is that we must open our eyes to all the different ways in which the pandemic's impact can be felt. It's not just a matter of stats.
Comments