2.0 -- Morality in the time of Covid-19 (Kant, with a side of Popper)

Dear Readers,

What seems clear to me is that the Covid-19 pandemic is bringing two things into great relief: all the things that were good and right with people and society (religion, politics, etc.) and all the things that were bad and wrong with the above. Generosity has been in abundance between friends and neighbors--getting groceries for each other, checking in through video and phone calls, making masks for health care workers, donating to people. Democrats and Republicans are agreeing about the necessity to DO something, and this time around, Republicans are offering a stimulus to the economy (remember that the last time this happened, it was the Democrats who wrote a stimulus bill). Religious service is continuing through prerecorded means and is giving people a sense of community. But it's not all gumdrops, folks. There are still masses of people continuing to hold large parties, there are megachurches gathering in the hundreds who are preaching that this coronavirus is a hoax, and there are still politicians who are actively working to dismantle protective measures. Yes, these people and institutions do seem to be a minority (one hopes), but they are a vocal one and, therefore, a dangerous one.

In a college philosophy course, I learned about a concept that changed my way of thinking: Kant's "Categorical Imperative". [In fact, it changed my way of thinking so much that I forgot that it wasn't my own idea to begin with until rediscovering Kant about twenty years later.] Kant was living in a time of political, religious, societal (really, everything) upheaval known as the Enlightenment. Simply put, the reason for a search for a new moral doctrine was that the ability of religion to supply all moral guidance was eroding. When people see the moral failings of religion (or any other institution), they have two options: close their eyes to them and go on as if all was normal, or look elsewhere for moral guidance. This was a time in Western civilization for the latter option to take center stage.

Kant's "Categorial Imperative" has three different formulations, the first two of which I summarize below:
#1: Act according to those maxims that, if universally applied, would contain no contradictions or irrationalities.
#2: Treat all people as an end, rather than a means (i.e. the worth of individuals is inherent in their existence).

Philosophers since have taken Kantian ethics and augmented, reformed, criticized, and negated them, but the fact is unshakeable that Kant's contribution was massive. His moral arguments were predicated on the idea of duty of the individual to both himself and society. [Aside: it is not my purpose here to field all of the arguments that there have been, but rather to see, in the light of the current world situation, the utility of this way of thinking. That being said, I've listed a short caveat below this essay as an example.] Below are a few examples I've come up with that exemplify violations and proper usage of the first two formulations.


Examples of proper usage of Formulation #1:
   *Staying at home, washing their hands, assuming that they have the coronavirus and do not want to spread it to others.
   *Reaching out on the phone to check on friends and family.

Examples of (in the time of Covid-19) violations of Formulation #1:
   *Hoarding toilet paper and trying to make money off of price gouging cleaning materials.
   *Spring breaking in Florida.

Examples of proper usage of Formulation #2:
   *The glorious work of doctors and nurses, treating all patients to the best of their abilities (the Hippocratic oath is a clear example of Formulation #2)
   *Respecting grocery store clerks by being careful when shopping, wearing a mask and gloves. The clerks are not there just to give you food (means), they are also there because they are people (end).

Examples of violations of Formulation #2:
   *Enacting policy that will protect oneself over others (Trump's determination to reopen the U.S. economy by Easter)
   *Enacting policy that will protect the many while putting the few at risk (U.K.'s herd immunity policy)

____________________
The two largest questions for me regarding morality in the time of Covid-19 are:

1. Can those, who already are respecting Kant's Categorical Imperative, influence the actions of those who are not? And if so, how?
2. When this pandemic ends, which it eventually will, how do we take what we've learned about morality and apply it to our daily lives to better ourselves, our society, our world?

My answer for the first question is, I honestly don't know. Those people whose actions fly in the face of societal necessity are, according to Rousseau, people who need to be brought back into the fold through any means necessary. But we are not a society that looks kindly on the threat of police involvement, martial law, etc. We are far too individualistic and anti-disestablishment. Karl Popper talks about the limits of tolerance as being something that liberal societies must always grapple with. According to Popper, tolerance, if given free reign, leads to the dissolution of tolerance (full tolerance means that one must tolerate the intolerant, eventually leading to the intolerant rising up against the tolerant and dissolving them). Tolerance should be granted to those whose actions are tolerable. So we certainly don't need to tolerate those people who hoard toilet paper, congregate in large groups, continue to attend live church services. We should continue to educate them (and perhaps shame them if that's what it takes) but can we change their behavior? That is to be seen.

The more interesting question of these two for me, is the second: What happens after? When this global threat has passed, what moral lessons will we have learned? After all, these moral lessons are about care and respect for others. Can we remember these lessons when we think about how many shoes we buy vs. need? Or where the shoes were made? Or who made the shoes? Or what their wage and working condition is? Can we extend the care and respect to non-humans? Can we remember the lessons when we decide if it matters is we buy cruelty-free lipliner? Or factory farmed meat?
Can we extend the care and respect to our water and our earth and our air? Can we demand companies stop commodifying natural resources and bottling them for a profit? Does my company really need me to fly across the country for a single night to attend a single meeting that could just as easily happen over the internet?

What this all boils down to, for me, is the realization that to make a society work, not just for the healthy and the wealthy, but for the sick and the poor, we must give up the idea that we are separate from one another, and that our actions do not matter. The recent comedy-philosophy show, "The Good Place", talks about the impossibility of being human, because every action we take, no matter how small or innocuous, can create waves of positive and negative effects throughout the universe. This is a Hindu/Buddhist concept known as "Indra's Net"--everything is connected to everything else. But this should not result in hopelessness, but rather a striving. Just because we will not make it to the goal line this time does not mean that we shouldn't kick the ball a little closer. There are others on our team, and they rely on us, as we rely on them, in getting the ball further down the field.

One more suggestion: let's take that second formulation and apply it to non-human elements as well. Natural resources (water, air, earth, minerals), and non-human animals have inherent worth. The worth of water is not how much in can be sold for in a plastic bottle. The worth of the earth is not how much a waterfront property can be sold for. The worth of a cow is not its price and weight in ground chuck. Let's look at this world and see it as an ends, rather than a means, and treat it as such.

Stay well,
Trevor

____________________
* A caveat to Kant (or, a Kant-veat, if you will): the main problem that I see with Kant is simply that he wanted there to exist over-arching moral decisions that could be made, independent of situation. This is an over-simplication of reality. There are times that the possibilities at our disposable are dictated by our environment and our knowledge. For example, in the U.S. 1950s, smoking tobacco was an integral part of adult life. It was part of the environment and the public lacked the knowledge of the harm of cigarette smoke (first- and second-hand). This action would not have been immoral at the time. It only became immoral when the knowledge became prevalent that one was hurting others, not just oneself.

1.0 -- Science Fiction in the time of Covid-19

Readers,

A caveat: I am nowhere near the most well-read science fiction fan in the world. I have read many of the classics including Asimov's Foundation Saga, Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land", the first few offerings in Herbert's "Dune" series, and Card's "Ender's Game". The same goes for tv shows and movies--I have not watched much past the socially "required" offerings. But that being said, it does seem that the most interesting and thoughtful additions to this genre are ones in which philosophy takes a front seat. Typically, a catastrophe (nuclear war, disease, supervolcano) has befallen the human species or even our entire planet, and it is up to the characters to make sense of their new reality. New problems arise, and with them new solutions. The great questions, many philosophers have said, the only real questions, are once again examined: What is our meaning? What does it mean to live a good life? How do we create a fair and just world? And the story is off and running. The creators of these stories have invented calamity, new worlds, even new species, really to once examine the great questions of life.

The human species is again at a time of great reckoning. This is not the first, and this is not even the most terrifying. It is simply the new. We have had two global wars, the threat of nuclear annihilation, pandemics, genocide. This new virus will not spell the end of humanity. This new virus will take thousands of human lives, it will upend the economy, it will bring to the surface problems that we would prefer to continue to ignore. This virus has no inherent meaning, no message, no reason, except for what we make of it.

We are living through the very real beginning of a science-fiction scenario. In a 300 page novel, what has happened thus far would only be the first fifteen pages. The tragedy, the anxiety, the uncertainty. The unsung heroes, finally being celebrated (nurses, grocery store clerks, gas station attendants). The artists, doing what they have always done, creating in spite of all odds. The good politicians, doing their utmost to solve this problem in spite of an increasingly broken system, and the bad politicians, taking advantage of the situation for a little insider trading.

The rest of this novel is unwritten. What is for certain, is that the end will be different than the beginning. The prequel to this novel will come out a little later, perhaps in the form of history books. Through reading this, we will remember that forests had been dying from carbon dioxide, cattle ranching, and invasive species. We will remember that the waters had been polluted from microplastics. We will remember that the promise of democratic institutions had been derailed by runaway capitalism in the form of kleptocracy and multinational corporations. We will remember that religions had been taken over by extremists and bad faith actors. The list goes on. In other words, this virus has not entered the Garden of Eden.

So, the biggest question of the big questions in most of these science-fiction stories is this: what do you want the world to look like? Not a question asked out of fear or desperation, but a question asked out of hope. Philosophers have asked this question for centuries, and institutions have arisen from many of these very philosophies, but our institutions have forgotten their purpose. Perhaps new philosophies need to be invented, and new institutions need to arise. Or perhaps old philosophies need to be remembered in order to reorient the institutions that already exist. More likely, a combination of the two.

I'll start with a couple of answers, and over the next couple of months, see where these answers might take me, and where they might take you, the reader.

#1: I would like to live in a world with clean air, water, soil, and healthy biodiversity.
#2: I would like to live in a world where humans have equal access to healthy food, clean water, good health care, and education.

In this blog, I will be looking at some of the great philosophers that I have been exposed to in my life, and how their thinking could be practically applied to meet these goals. As a non-philosopher, but very interested thinker, it will be my attempt to correctly represent their ideas as best as I can, while recognizing that at the same time, that I am, in all likelihood, (slightly) twisting their thoughts in order to fit my own present needs. I hope they (and you) will forgive this.

Stay well.