Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHaaz, Ignace
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-22T09:58:09Z
dc.date.available2020-05-22T09:58:09Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/3942689
dc.description.abstractThe fear of the largely unknown consequences of being exposed to coronavirus should have brought a more dynamic interplay of beliefs and opinions for those who in the footsteps of J.S. Mill believe that the limits of power, which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual, is to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1859, Introduction). To be kept in a room is an invitation to think or do things with a higher degree of intelligence, empathy and tact. Our surprise is that not much debate or critical interaction has taken place on the choice of locking down the majority of the populations of over 185 countries, after the outbreak of the newest Coronavirus (COVID-19). Instead of testing and isolating those who are sick, general lockdown occurred which could be seen as “a gross usurpation upon the liberty of private life” in the absence of a clear demonstration that lockdown is preventing some harm. The anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel has recently unfold in a diachronic process the lockdown process (Michel, 2020), through his daily reporting, pointing out some the potentially harmful consequences of this choice. He has critically analysed the idea of an allegedly constructive and positive “social distancing”, which will have deep educational, economic, health consequences, without clearly having a grip on the overall pandemic, which rolls out without possible control. Le deep axiological and ethical question for philosophers is what type and degree of authority is needed during this period. Is it as Stoic philosophers many have thought self-discipline which is needed, as precondition “to follow the path of duty and virtue”? To resolve the struggle between liberty and authority would not yet mean rushing into blind and passive submission to drastic and non-useful constraints. In an authority based understanding severity means working harder, to do what is needed in order to “never permit [our] soul to be caught by […] pain” (Seneca, Clem., Nussbaum, 1994:426). Consequently, we should not accept to suspend critical thinking in order to remain loyal to any authority, which doesn’t mean not respecting public health policy measures. It means instead have the courage to affirm our resistance toward misconceptions, in particular if they are likely to have harmful consequences. Our article will review some of these problematic situations highlighting that no society is free or can achieve the objective of a fairly pluralistic set of values (including freedom of access to education, of a good health protection for all, or of having independent media and a credible press), without a given social practice of these values. No general basic liberties can be respected on the whole, as Mill claims, without some previous and gradual evolution can happen, namely before other more specific liberties have met sustainable social practice. Let’s show how this logic of spreading of values unfolds in the context of the Coronavirus crisis and the omnipresent focus on some physical spread of the disease, as it is always the case in infectious disease epidemics.en_US
dc.format.extent1 online resource (23 pages)en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherCentre for the Study of World Religions (CSWR), established at Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram (DVK), Pontifical Athenaeum of Philosophy, Theology, and Canon Lawen_US
dc.rightsDharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bengaluru, Indiaen_US
dc.subjectapplied ethicsen_US
dc.subjectcoronavirus
dc.subjectfear
dc.subjectemotions
dc.subjectvalue pluralism
dc.subjecthealth ethics
dc.subjectmedical ethics
dc.subjectpandemic
dc.subject.otherGlobal ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherPhilosophical ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherMoral judgementen_US
dc.subject.otherMoral universalism/relativismen_US
dc.subject.otherNormative ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherMoral psychologyen_US
dc.subject.otherAuthority and the lawen_US
dc.subject.otherPolitical authority/consent/consensusen_US
dc.subject.otherFreedom, Liberty and Tolerationen_US
dc.subject.otherEquality/varieties ofen_US
dc.subject.otherDevelopment ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherAgingen_US
dc.subject.otherMinority ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherAnthropologyen_US
dc.subject.otherMedia/communication/information ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherEducation and ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherIdeals of the human flourishingen_US
dc.subject.otherEthics of teaching/inclusivityen_US
dc.subject.otherBioethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherMedical ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherHealth ethicsen_US
dc.titleCoronavirus and value pluralism : a robust ethical perspective on a pandemicen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of Dharmaen_US
dc.source.volume45en_US
dc.source.issueno. 2, April-June 2020en_US
refterms.dateFOA2020-05-22T09:58:10Z
ge.collectioncode0731-5082
ge.collectioncodeBB
ge.submissions1
ge.peerreviewedyesen_US
ge.placeofpublicationBengaluru (India)en_US
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
45.1.3.Corona virus. Ethics. ...
Embargo:
2020-08-01
Size:
403.1Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record