On The Difficult Moral Questions Needing to Be Addressed During COVID-19

Episode S2E8: Show Notes:

With much of the debate surrounding our current pandemic focusing on decision-making based on scientific models, the economic impacts, and legal questions, what is being left unexplored is perhaps what is most important: a robust moral conversation. What do we owe to each other during a pandemic? 

On this episode of Lawrence Talks, I am joined by my co-host Michael Otteson and moral philosopher and the chair of the KU philosophy department, Dale Dorsey. 

Together we explore some of the difficult questions that both policy-makers and the general public should be asking and exploring in times of a pandemic, and in public health policy generally.

Key Points From This Episode:

One way of thinking about our moral obligations during a pandemic is thinking about general welfare.

Policy decisions, specifically those made in response to COVID-19, often take positions on moral questions without making explicit the reasoning behind such positions.

Science alone, or in this case, epidemiological data cannot get us to a particular normative decision. This is often referred to as the gap between is (data) and ought (we should do x in light of the data).

We should not be afraid to ask what may appear to be controversial or intractable questions. Whether we acknowledge them or not, they are there and we still take a position on them.

Upshot: We should be more explicit and public about our moral positions. Doing so may lead to better decision-making and possibly (hopefully) better policies.

While Dr. Dorsey bases much of his analysis on a welfarist approach, there are also rights based arguments for stay-at-home orders. We recommend this article for your consideration.