When dealing with pandemics, should we value liberty more than human life? What do you think?

When dealing with pandemics, should we value liberty more than human life? What do you think?

[ 30/August/21 ]

The instant that anyone puts liberty ahead of life, they have already destroyed liberty; because liberty requires life; thus life necessarily has precedence. No logical escape from that, ever!

A hard thing for some to accept is that liberty always has to come with responsibility, if it is to have any significant probability of surviving. Liberty without responsibility has a high probability of destroying some of the necessary sets of constraints required for the existence of that level of complexity.

There is no requirement in reality that liberty be simple; that is a just a bias of human brains.

The only really effective tool for dealing with novel pandemics is isolation, lockdown. That always has been, and always will be, the case. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of both history and biology.

[To a Separate answer by John Currier I think our history of fighting and dying for liberty amply demonstrates that individual liberty is more important.]

No – for the most part, it simply demonstrates that it is relatively easy to capture minds and use them as tools in some higher level strategic battle. And it does get quite complex quite quickly, particularly when indefinite life extension is a real option.

[followed by John – I have no idea what you are trying to say.]

I am saying explicitly that much of the history of people sacrificing their lives in the name of “liberty” seems to have been part of higher level strategies about which those who gave their lives, for the most part, knew nothing, and which strategies were for the benefit of some very small subset of humanity.

If you think seriously about liberty, then it requires life to exercise it.

If one is faced with death on all sides, then choosing the death that gives the greatest probability of liberty for those that survive makes sense, I can agree with that.

What I find repugnant to liberty is the way in which it is often captured by nationalism or any form of “ism” that essentially uses those so captured to risk their lives and liberty for the benefit of some group whose existence they are not even aware of.

[John replied – There is no doubt that a large portion of soldiers- particularly draftees- participation for the reasons you state. However our “ founding” war was certainly primarily fought by those who valued liberty more than their lives.]

I doubt that.

It is certainly true to say that they valued liberty greatly, and were prepared to risk death in the pursuit of liberty, rather than face death in servitude.

That isn’t quite the same thing.

[John replied – Then we will have to agree to disagree.]

We can agree that we disagree.

Are you familiar with Aumann’s agreement theorem?
Aumann’s agreement theorem – Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann’s_agreement_theorem)

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see www.tedhowardnz.com/money
This entry was posted in Nature, Philosophy, understanding and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s