FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Moral Dilemma of wrong decisions.
Moral Dilemma of wrong decisions.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Have considered if your view on covid may be the wrong one?
One thing few seem to consider is the moral impact of getting the decision wrong and no one for one second should think it only those who feel better to open up.
Those who have the view to lockdow longer have as big a moral dilemma to consider too. The longer the lockdown continues the more deaths we will have due to many easily prevented deaths happening too. There are many studies showing few were heart attacks up to 55% in the states. I'm convinced studies will show that many 'covid' deaths will have been death transference. Many of these people would have gone to get treatment or even required surgery but have avoided it because they are scared of getting covid and have died at home.
Many also have had death by covid instead of death 'with' covid. As you so tightly say the majority are over 55 and with underlying health issues, with the exception to heath workers who are exposed to a greater level and persistence of infection. So the moral dilemma is those insisting on extended lockdown is can you live with these deaths and the long term social effects it will have on those who suffer from mental illnesses due to lockdown, the lasting psychological scars that will be created from those who have been made homeless, loss of employment the scars that will be created to those individuals and families who now will be caught in the poverty trap with increased unemployment fir for many will definitely be caught there with the massive increase in unemployment and prospects of getting out of it uncertain with so many businesses folding? I've not even looked at suicide rates and issues due to lockdown either and the biggest issue is fear. This I consider could be the biggest long term social and economic most damaging issue and it will be many years before we understand it's full implications.
Interested in others views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have considered if your view on covid may be the wrong one?
One thing few seem to consider is the moral impact of getting the decision wrong and no one for one second should think it only those who feel better to open up.
Those who have the view to lockdow longer have as big a moral dilemma to consider too. The longer the lockdown continues the more deaths we will have due to many easily prevented deaths happening too. There are many studies showing few were heart attacks up to 55% in the states. I'm convinced studies will show that many 'covid' deaths will have been death transference. Many of these people would have gone to get treatment or even required surgery but have avoided it because they are scared of getting covid and have died at home.
Many also have had death by covid instead of death 'with' covid. As you so tightly say the majority are over 55 and with underlying health issues, with the exception to heath workers who are exposed to a greater level and persistence of infection. So the moral dilemma is those insisting on extended lockdown is can you live with these deaths and the long term social effects it will have on those who suffer from mental illnesses due to lockdown, the lasting psychological scars that will be created from those who have been made homeless, loss of employment the scars that will be created to those individuals and families who now will be caught in the poverty trap with increased unemployment fir for many will definitely be caught there with the massive increase in unemployment and prospects of getting out of it uncertain with so many businesses folding? I've not even looked at suicide rates and issues due to lockdown either and the biggest issue is fear. This I consider could be the biggest long term social and economic most damaging issue and it will be many years before we understand it's full implications.
Interested in others views."
It is my opinion that cov19 IS indeed a moral conundrum as apossed to a scientific one
There are a number of effective ways to cope or endure it's the moral implications which are the tightrope
The science is brutality clear
If you meet another human
Unless both tested that day or quarantined you will eventually be complicit in anothers death
Just as you were when you did the same with influenza
At some point the moral compass will switch again and we will become close and the virus will permeate deaths will occur
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have no moral dilemma as I have absolutely no influence over anybody’s behaviour concerning covid 19 but my own. I have decided to ensure I pose the least risk possible to other people. Other people might make a different decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Difficult one as there simply isn’t enough info and too much conjecture. The question of health and keeping safe versus economics and getting money in is a dilemma however, which I feel has no right answer. Everyone simply has to decide for themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My view is that majority of us decided what to do based on what the Govt told us to do.
They want to protect the people but at the same time save the economy. Not an easy task.
There is a case for continuing with the safety measures but ensuring clearer communication to public to ensure deaths with and without Covid could be avoided. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have no moral dilemma as I have absolutely no influence over anybody’s behaviour concerning covid 19 but my own. I have decided to ensure I pose the least risk possible to other people. Other people might make a different decision. "
For how long
Who that you love are you not hugging
And what If only if and I only mean if as a hypothetical
What if we are wrong
What genuinely if there WOULD be less death and suffering if we did not ensure we pose a risk
What if
Let it run
10 million die 200 000 children
Protect others
Eventually 12 million die 1 million children
What if?
I have zero idea
But I do think it plausible the numbers will be a close call
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I am concerned
That it is plausible
(This does not mean I think its correct or we should)
I'm concerned that
The Scenario is similar to the hypothetical run away train
Train two tracks
The train will continue along track kill 100 people 50 children
There is a person standing by the track
Push them onto the track they die but the train diverts and kills 80 people 22 children
But no one morally feels they can push the person
I do not have anywhere enough data to take a position
However we could be morally avoiding the push despite it saving life
Could , I said could not are and not should
Shitty times
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have no moral dilemma as I have absolutely no influence over anybody’s behaviour concerning covid 19 but my own. I have decided to ensure I pose the least risk possible to other people. Other people might make a different decision.
For how long
Who that you love are you not hugging
And what If only if and I only mean if as a hypothetical
What if we are wrong
What genuinely if there WOULD be less death and suffering if we did not ensure we pose a risk
What if
Let it run
10 million die 200 000 children
Protect others
Eventually 12 million die 1 million children
What if?
I have zero idea
But I do think it plausible the numbers will be a close call
"
I can't deal in "what if". I can only deal with what's in front of me. I desperately miss our children and my parents but they've taken the same desicion I have.
I'm not saying I won't change the way I think as things move forward |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Have considered if your view on covid may be the wrong one?
One thing few seem to consider is the moral impact of getting the decision wrong and no one for one second should think it only those who feel better to open up.
Those who have the view to lockdow longer have as big a moral dilemma to consider too. The longer the lockdown continues the more deaths we will have due to many easily prevented deaths happening too. There are many studies showing few were heart attacks up to 55% in the states. I'm convinced studies will show that many 'covid' deaths will have been death transference. Many of these people would have gone to get treatment or even required surgery but have avoided it because they are scared of getting covid and have died at home.
Many also have had death by covid instead of death 'with' covid. As you so tightly say the majority are over 55 and with underlying health issues, with the exception to heath workers who are exposed to a greater level and persistence of infection. So the moral dilemma is those insisting on extended lockdown is can you live with these deaths and the long term social effects it will have on those who suffer from mental illnesses due to lockdown, the lasting psychological scars that will be created from those who have been made homeless, loss of employment the scars that will be created to those individuals and families who now will be caught in the poverty trap with increased unemployment fir for many will definitely be caught there with the massive increase in unemployment and prospects of getting out of it uncertain with so many businesses folding? I've not even looked at suicide rates and issues due to lockdown either and the biggest issue is fear. This I consider could be the biggest long term social and economic most damaging issue and it will be many years before we understand it's full implications.
Interested in others views.
It is my opinion that cov19 IS indeed a moral conundrum as apossed to a scientific one
There are a number of effective ways to cope or endure it's the moral implications which are the tightrope
The science is brutality clear
If you meet another human
Unless both tested that day or quarantined you will eventually be complicit in anothers death
Just as you were when you did the same with influenza
At some point the moral compass will switch again and we will become close and the virus will permeate deaths will occur
"
I'm not as clear cut in your analysis that science is that clear cut. It's not proven that everyone who come in contact with someone with covid will automatically get it/carry it and pass it on. That I feel is still an unknown and an assumption taken in the pursuit of isolation of the virus. The verdict is still out there on that, but it's a big possibility. I don't think it's the case with the flu. There are a few more factors that mean it's not guaranteed. But I take your point.
Second point is also an assumption. It's happened in a few places and not yet happen like that in others.
We must remember that it's new and a lot of science is speculative and much based upon statistics ATM which as anyone knows can be manipulated or interpretated as one wants at times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Difficult one as there simply isn’t enough info and too much conjecture. The question of health and keeping safe versus economics and getting money in is a dilemma however, which I feel has no right answer. Everyone simply has to decide for themselves."
I can't seem to separate this two issues as clearly as many seem to see it. Many seem to think it's about health and safety v economics. I see there are and will be serious health and safety and economic issues either way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"When it comes to covid how can anybody be sure they've made the right or wrong decision? "
That's partly the point of my post. We all have to make choices. Some will be making then on more obvious moral issues now but realise that there are moral consequences later that they hadn't thought about.
So the point is to maybe open up our thinking wider by considering other moral issues I raised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't seem to separate this two issues as clearly as many seem to see it. Many seem to think it's about health and safety v economics. I see there are and will be serious health and safety and economic issues either way."
Indeed there will be.
Our government, in common with others, has decided that a lower death toll, with more people in straitened economic circumstances (which are survivable), is better than the alternative - a less damaged economy, with a far higher death toll.
It's the option I'd have picked. I was actually quite surprised when they did.
If the "have nots" not being sacrificed on the altar of capitalism means the "haves" have a little less, so be it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When it comes to covid how can anybody be sure they've made the right or wrong decision?
That's partly the point of my post. We all have to make choices. Some will be making then on more obvious moral issues now but realise that there are moral consequences later that they hadn't thought about.
So the point is to maybe open up our thinking wider by considering other moral issues I raised."
I think we should all be listening as well as speaking, too. There's a lot of polarisation and we can learn from other perspectives. Share sources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't seem to separate this two issues as clearly as many seem to see it. Many seem to think it's about health and safety v economics. I see there are and will be serious health and safety and economic issues either way.
Indeed there will be.
Our government, in common with others, has decided that a lower death toll, with more people in straitened economic circumstances (which are survivable), is better than the alternative - a less damaged economy, with a far higher death toll.
It's the option I'd have picked. I was actually quite surprised when they did.
If the "have nots" not being sacrificed on the altar of capitalism means the "haves" have a little less, so be it."
It is presented that this current course of action will have a lower death toll
5 years in a virus still killing those it's going to and the ripples killing those the virus would not have done
Its plausible that humanity though its compassion will end up killing more
I said plausible not that I believe that want that or have calculated that
Plausible
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
