Ethical Conflicts

Among other issues generated by COVID-19 there is a swarm of ethical conflicts. The simplest way to phrase the question may be, “what is the right thing to do?” An example: Shall churches conduct worship services in their buildings knowing that the increase of COVID-19 cases might be the result? The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution’s first amendment. On the other hand, does not the government have the right to prohibit all public indoor gatherings, and that would include those of religious organizations? Herein lies the ethical conflict between a strict observance of government edicts and religious freedom.
To look at the question another way involves the classical debate between
a faithful observance of rules and laws, and deciding what is the right thing to do based on results. On one hand there is the overriding obligation to observe rules and laws as the foundation of an orderly society. “Deontology” defines the legitimacy of rules, and flows from the Greek root “deon” that concerns duty or obligation. It is our duty to follow the rules! If everyone can decide which rules to follow and which rules to violate, the result would be cultural chaos. Moses was not given ten suggestions. On the other hand, what if the strict observance of any law compromises the results? Thus we have the conflict between the absolute priority of rules and the right to consider outcomes.

For instance, keeping restaurants closed may legitimately curb the proliferation of the pandemic, but as a result uncounted employees and the rights of owners are radically compromised. So every one of us is faced with the conflict between law and liberty. In our city wearing suitable masks is mandatory, and being caught without one may result in a serious fine. This seems similar to the obligation for everyone in a car to wear seatbelts.
I have been reflecting on the times I have violated the law through acts of “civil
disobedience” or following what I believed to be a higher law. Simon Peter confronted the authorities with the declaration that “we must obey God rather than men.”

Does the resolution of this conflict revolve around John Stuart Mill’s
resolution that right living involves “the greatest good for the greatest number?” Does every person have a right to judge based on Mill’s utilitarian resolution? What I see as the greatest good for the greatest number may be the opposite of what you see.

Now I want to frame this conflict by looking at how it is being played out in my retirement community. Our administration, supported by a committee that includes residents and board members, has ordered that there should be no outside visitors. Residents are not to be in each other’s homes, nor can residents visit their neighbors and friends in assisted living facilities or in our skilled nursing center. Anyone going off the campus must be isolated for fourteen days upon their return. These and other rules have been established to protect us from getting or transferring the virus, so we have had no confirmed cases, among residents, no hospitalizations and no deaths! Whatever the downside, we have been kept safe.

But what if these regulations we have agreed to observe produce unanticipated negative results? For instance: it has been nine months since family members have been allowed to visit, and being cut off from face to face contacts has in many cases been emotionally devastating. This has been hard on those residents in their final years whose family contacts are increasingly precious. ZOOM is no substitute. In addition, much about our normal living patterns has been seriously disrupted.

So perhaps there is no final answer except to look at legitimate rules in terms of their results, with our priority centered on our being a mutually responsible community, not just a collection of autonomous individuals. Thus I believe there is a need to observe our commonly agreed-upon rules unless the results mandate an immediate and compelling reason not to, or it is common opinion that the rule accomplishes no important purpose.