https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-philosophers-diaries/202005/lockdown-versus-freedom
The question is, what level of risk do those actions pose, and is
imposing that risk impermissible. What we have here is a conflict
between the right to act freely, on the one hand, and the duty not to
endanger the life and health of others, on the other. Where freedom ends
and the duty to keep others safe even at a cost to oneself begins is by
no means obvious.
The alternative is to forgo analysis and insist – via protests and
social media campaigns – that one’s preference becomes public policy.
That's hardly a way to sound decision making. (In
addition, the alternative has costs of its own. For instance, protests –
being large gatherings – may involve high levels of risk, indeed,
higher than the risks associated with going back to work or engaging in
any of the other activities protesters would like to engage in.)
Look, no one says you can freely threaten another with violence or shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre. The problem is that if you look at the average speech code in government and college workplaces, you see a Stalinist set of rules leading to thought control. People would rather avoid that for obvious reasons. All these articles are basically "Wanting to be free is bad. We'll prove that by bringing lousy examples and making it seem that denying people personal freedom is totally reasonable!"
ReplyDelete