The COVID-19 epidemic has presented healthcare professionals, health systems, and national governments with a significant and almost unprecedented problem. The potential threat to a significant number of patients has resulted in limitations on transportation, work, and daily life, affecting billions of people and resulting in enormous economic expenses. Flattening the COVID-19 curve required convincing individuals to desire physical separation from others, a practice known as lockdowns (Bramble, 2020). Quarantine was accompanied by a variety of penalties for breaking it. While most of the world’s countries have been placed on lockdown to prevent their healthcare systems from becoming overburdened, this has prompted various issues regarding what to do next (Bramble, 2020). Looking at this subject from many perspectives can reveal various ethical, economic, and political difficulties that governments and society confront.
The ethical aspects of quarantine, as well as its improvement, expansion, and disclosure of the consequences, are the focus of this article. Advocates of social mitigation, for example, frequently downplay its negative health consequences, but lockdowns, on the other hand, have become a significant burden on the world economy (Bramble, 2020). The issue of lockdown is hard to downplay since, with each new mutation, there is always a looming perspective of another lockdown. Lockdowns, in their turn, sparked a big societal controversy and can be ethically discussed from several ethical standpoints. Utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics – can be placed as the main pillars of lockdown discussion. The controversy surrounding lockdowns became the primary objective of different scholars who approached it from Mill, Kant, or other founding scholars’ perspectives of different ethical schools. In truth, there is no general theory that can be applied to this issue since each of them has its ebbs and flows; however, the relevance of the discussion itself can not be overestimated.
Many ethnic theories assume that there is a moral motive to do what is expected to maximize what is good for everyone, or, to put it another way, a net excess of what is good for everyone over what is harmful to them. Utilitarians think that morality consists only of maximizing what is beneficial for everyone (Mill, 2017). This makes moral judgments easier by reducing them to a single criterion of correctness, utility maximization. In many cases, this, together with some rules of thumb for determining what optimizes utility, may be adequate.
While reducing lockdowns may cause many issues in the short term, it will deliver a huge amount of overall satisfaction at the price of the long-term economic benefit of allowing individuals to return to work, according to utilitarianism. In his writings, J. S. Mill, a key figure in utilitarianism, agrees that instances of moral good and evil may be mixed quantitatively (Mill, 2017). In terms of society’s openness rather than quarantine, this might be regarded in a similar light. Mill believes that what matters ethically is the length and quality of life that the dead would have had if had not died (Mill, 2017). As a result, even if the number of fatalities rises once the quarantine is lifted, it is still preferable to live in a confined pit-like construction.
The Mills’ presumptions generally support my point of view that the overall benefit of opening up can serve a good deal in terms of improving the mass well-being and reducing the economic burden. Still, it is crucial to point out that the greatest challenge that society has during this epidemic is that we do not know exactly what efforts will be most effective in the long run (Bramble, 2020). When applying Mill’s ideas to the realities of lockdown, the growth in intimate relationship violence and mental illness, as well as high levels of poverty and unemployment, results in a lot of misery.
Other ethical standpoints are stemming from the different moral approaches, such as virtue ethics and deontology. My perspective and the utilitarianism approach are countered and, to some extent, contradicted by these theories. The consequences of an action may be desirable or unpleasant from a deontological standpoint, but they are not of primary concern. Rather, it focuses on topics such as what constitutes a morally acceptable action and what acts we should do. Kant, one of the most famous and influential proponents of this theory, views moral judgment to be based on the deed itself (Kant, 2017). Because the activity is judged, it must be ethical and moral in and of itself, with the outcome being secondary. The fundamental argument is that, in Immanuel Kant’s opinion, human lives cannot be compared to one another (Kant, 2017). This is in direct opposition to Mill’s thesis and its ramifications. The action of lifting the lockdown is deontologically unethical in and of itself, whereas the effects are secondary.
Another perspective is virtue ethics, which combines a more sophisticated understanding of freedom with a basic belief in the significance of a person’s moral character in achieving happiness (Aristotle, 2013). The reaction to the virus outbreak, according to virtue ethicists, should be directed by concerns about the virtues to be gained. Virtues such as charity, courage, and wisdom must be embraced by society, and their activities must be directed toward performing virtuously (Aristotle, 2013). As a result, the quarantine limitations enforced by the government are no longer regarded as unethical. It is a virtuously perfect behavior that does not lessen pleasure, create suffering, or jeopardize freedom.
The perspectives described, as well as their standpoints, are plausible, however, they are faced with contradictions and are subject to critique from different camps. Several objectives can be raised regarding both of them. When approaching Kant and his focus on the deed itself, it can be seen that many variables are simply left out of perspective. Well-being, and liberty, together with economic and technological development, can be put aside simply by narrowing the focus to the ambivalence of the immorality of the deed itself. In this sense, lying to the terrorists, and holding hostages, should be left out of the agenda, even to release the hostages. Virtue ethics, in its turn, can be objected to by the time-changing nature of the virtues themselves. The lockdown issue will develop, and so should the virtues, thus not developing any solid stance on the problem.
It is unlikely that any contemporary action undertaken by governments throughout the globe is completely based on one of the ethical schools under discussion. Some of them may be able to analyze the costs and advantages of various courses of action and policies more clearly and thoroughly. To choose a specific moral guide, whether Mill, Kant, or Aristotle, one would need a thorough comprehension of science and facts, the nature of well-being, and an in-depth understanding of the repercussions of a decision. In response, I would support the utilitarian approach to a certain extent, which has shortcomings but is flexible enough to be aware of macro variables and adjust appropriately.
References
Aristotle (2013). Nicomachean Ethics. (W. D. Ross, Trans.) Batoche Books.
Bramble, B. (2020). Pandemic Ethics: 8 Big Questions of COVID-19. Princeton University.
Kant, I. (2017). The groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. (J. Bennett, Ed.). Oxford University Press
Mill, J. S. (2017). Utilitarianism. (J. Bennett, Ed.). Oxford University Press