There are interesting moral and ethical questions that have been raised by some people, including the president, about death, the corona virus, and the economy. Simply put, the argument is about whether the economic pain caused by trying to slow the spread of the virus is worth the number of lives social distancing might save. Snowflake liberals are appalled that someone dare even ask the question. Others, on the right, argue that death is preferable to surrendering freedom to socialism. Do we go all in for corporate socialism and bail out big business and Wall Street? Or do we engage in democratic socialism and spread the pain out among everyone?
If we define socialism as simply making economic decisions that are favorable to the bulk of society (see my essay “Republicans, Not Democrats, will turn America into a Socialist Country“), then social distancing is indeed pure socialism including loss of freedom of movement and commerce. The alternative is letting nature run its course and accepting whatever death rate the pandemic gives us. The irony of conservatives advocating Social Darwinism is not lost on me. Nor is the hypocrisy of capitalists begging the government for handouts.
If the narrative that only elderly people are at risk for COVID-19 death were true, then asking those of us over 60 to step onto the corona-virus ice flow makes some intellectual sense. But that narrative is false like so many others surrounding the pandemic. It is a nice idea though. Who among us hasn’t had to deal with an elderly relative who has lived past their expiration date and is driving the family nuts? Changing the diaper on a baby is no picnic. but at least there is an end in sight. Eighty-five-year-old bottoms are another story. Some people’s bodies just outlive them. A COVID-19 party, the anti-vaxxer solution to viral outbreaks, would make the family’s life easier. It would also free up social security money. The fact that the Nazis pioneered this “natural selection” policy doesn’t automatically make it wrong from a moral or ethical standpoint.
So how do we decide what is the moral/ethical path? I reject the notion that religion can help us decide the morality or ethical judgement of this proposed evolutionary pruning of the human tree. First of all, religion is used to justify all kinds of unethical and immoral actions from slavery to suicide bombers. The twisted logic of Evangelical Christians, like Jerry Falwell, who abhor abortion but are okay with risking the lives of the elderly. disqualifies them from the debate. Instead, I will use the humanistic ideal of doing what is best for most people rather than just myself. This has the advantage of being the basic ethos behind “getting the country back to normal.” It is a socialist idea that both conservatives and liberals can embrace. And it has the practical advantage of using the democratic “will of the people” to determine right and wrong. Because that’s what happens with most ethical and moral questions in the long run anyway.
When you trim away the emotional fluff, the real question being asked is: “What is the monetary value American society puts on a human life?” As simple as that question seems, there are many complications. Abortion and gun violence are but two examples. Many argue that a fetus is invaluable and should be protected no matter what the financial cost to the mother is. On the other hand, a mother who wants to protect her child from gun violence is SOL.
Rather than get bogged down in those ethical quagmires, I’ll take a cue from the president himself. Let’s talk about traffic accidents. We have many car accidents, injuries, and deaths every year but don’t shut down roads and automobile factories. True, it is a poor analogy for reasons other people like Dr. Fauci have explained. But I will use it anyway. I am leaving out most of the math involved because: (a) most Americans hate math, (b) stats on the virus are changing, confusing and often unreliable, and (c) I don’t want to be an armchair epidemiologist. Besides, the exact numbers aren’t important to my ethical examination.
What is the monetary worth of an American life? When it comes into the realm of the judiciary, it depends on how good the lawyers are. Some have successfully pegged the value of deceased clients at millions of dollars, so courts are no help. Instead, let’s look at the price previous presidents and businessmen have established.
The U.S. has the highest rate of automobile deaths of any developed nation. To make comparisons between years and countries valid, we look at deaths per hundred thousand rather than raw totals. In 1971, for example, we had 52,542 deaths. The important number though is the ratio of 25.3 deaths per 100,000. In 2018, we had 36,560 deaths. But the ratio was only 11.18. This represents a decrease of more than half. Since the ratio started dropping consistently in 1980, the question is why? In the eighties, seatbelts started being mandatory in all cars. MADD attacked drunk drivers with legislation and culture change. Crumple zones, air bags, and safer roads and highway barriers all came online by the turn of the century.
Extrapolating the death rates, I estimate that two million lives have been saved in the last forty years due to these safety measures. In 1971, General Motors and Ford Motor Company asked then President Nixon to back off on mandatory seat belt installation in American cars. Lee Iacocca himself met with Nixon to plead the case. What is ironic about this concession is that all car companies were doing the expensive part of seatbelts (the framework and bolt set-ups) anyway in order to sell cars outside the U.S. Therefore, the 1971 savings of not putting in lap belts was less than $7.00 per car.
So, car companies and the president placed the value of an American life at $7. Meanwhile, in Vietnam where I was at the time, the value of a Vietnamese accidently killed by the U.S. troops was $500. But it is clear that Americans have voted with their pocketbooks for safer, albeit more expensive, cars and roads. There has also been a real culture change about drunk driving. Most people in the country are not okay with it. Drunk driving is now a felony in most states and will get offenders jail time. The democratic process has made it clear that American lives are worth more than $7.00 to most people.
No one knows what the death rate in the U.S. will be from COVID-19. If 40% of Americans get the virus and the death rate stays around the current 1%, then there will be 1.3 million deaths. Dr. Fauci predicted (on 3/28/20) 100 to 200 thousand deaths. The Imperial College of London predicted that without mitigation efforts, there will be two million deaths in the U.S. By Nixon’s and Iacocca’s cost benefit analysis, reopening the country at the cost of 2,000,000 lives is a no brainer. Important powerful people want us open for business so, by golly, let’s get busy dying!
As people smarter than me have pointed out, corporate socialism versus democratic socialism is a false choice. The economy is going to suffer no matter what. How do businesses stay open with 132 million sick people crashing the medical system? People like Glenn Beck and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick have said that no one has asked them if they’re willing to risk their lives for their grandchildren’s future. Excuse me if I don’t believe their affirmative answer. For one thing, their high place on the social ladder guarantees they won’t have to actually risk their lives. Secondly, when given the opportunity to fight for their country in Vietnam, they didn’t.
In fact, I don’t know of anyone calling for we seniors to risk our lives who has fought in Vietnam, Central America, Iraq, or Afghanistan. So, my answer to those who want me to risk my life, again, for the country, is no thank you. Not just no, but F*** NO. Furthermore, I am disgusted that it is even a topic of discussion. People should be ashamed of themselves for asking. But shame is a boat that sailed away from this country a long time ago. #NOTDYING4WALLSTREET
