Our world has become unneccesairly polarized, espicially since COVID-19 hit. Our world was obviously polarized before it hit, but somehow dealing with a worldwide pandemic has worsened it, not made it better. Which is unfortunate since many people were hoping some sort of common enemy would be able to unite us.
A part of this extra polarization is that it seems one side of the conversation insists if you think a certain way you are pro-science, but if you don’t think that way then you don’t believe in science or are anti-science. This doesn’t seem to be true, this seems to instead be based on two different value systems. On on side there seems to be a belief that if a science supports us giving up our freedoms to help the collective then that is the correct way to go. Another side seems to be that we should balance the costs before we give up our freedoms, it may be that each person’s costs would be different then anothers. Both of these should be debated, so that we can all end up with a happy middle ground. Although I have to admit, I mostly agree with the side of freedom, in that, I believe everyone should be able to decide for themselves the best way to behave in every situation, espicially in a pandemic.
My intent with this is not to look down on one side of this arguement versus the other. There are very valid reasons for both sides of this debate. If you have a condition that puts you at risk or puts others you care for at risk, then you have good reason to be on the side that is more cautious and you may be more comfortable to give up your freedoms. That, of course, isn’t a big deal since you are giving up those freedoms of your own free will and can go back to them at any time if you desire. But if we try to push legislation to enforce a lock down, then you and no one else is free to use those freedoms unless that legislation is changed. And nothing is as long-term as a shot-term government program, I”m not sure who originally said that, but the older I get, the more true that statement gets. But back to my original intent, my original intent is about the “The Is-Ought Problem”.
“The Is-Ought Problem” is articuled by David Hume in his book “A Treatise of Humane Nature”. This basically states that you can’t state what ought to be based on what is. A specific example, would be if you leave your home, you have a higher chance of getting COVID-19 than if you just stayed at home, so you should never leave your home. But this is of course, not how we live our lives, we take tons of risks every day through tasks that we don’t think is a big deal. We drive to and from work every day, we eat food that strangers cook for us, we get on a plane and fly across the country, etc. There are risks that are associated with all of these tasks, but we don’t stop doing them because their are risks associated. We do them because the benefit outweighs the risk.
Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t take the risks of COVID-19 into account, but to act like this is a one-sided equation just isn’t reasonable. We must determine if the choices we make on a personal level are worth the risk, like any other decision. We can’t let the media, politicians, or any other external source keep us from biasing us from the facts and our own value systems that decide how we make decisions on a day to day basis. So please, live your life, these are days that we aren’t getting back.
Moderately Conservative 