Covid-19 VI Lessons: Sacrifice

As the Covid-19 Pandemia came to in, Trump faded away in the social separation. It was a reason for getting back to work during the pandemia. In neutral terms, their argument was the damage caused by harm to the maintenance of social distance. This is the right approach that results in the correct action (or the lowest damage). Dan Patrick’s lieutenant governor has a similar argument, but much harder. In his opinion, the damage to the economy trying to protect people, people go through danger. He claimed that he would be willing to kill the economy and he would be willing to sacrifice other elderly. While there was no major view, he got some fox news tractions. While certain billion and patrics recognize the problem of their proposals, some claimed that the dead would be good, more than one plus one.

Billionaires add to other fortunes, due to raw sociopaths that sacrificed others, they propose a moral problem. How long should others sacrifice for the benefit of others? We accepted, and straightened by health care staff, food staff and many others in danger to others. As with the argument of billionaires, it can be morally justified around utilitarian reasons: few risks many for good. Caring for us to keep the rest alive, if food is available and so on. It is inarguard that these sacrifices were good, essential and heroic. It also improves that some of them were killed in their positions and should be done to keep the rest and our civilization alive. For essential goods and services, the risk seemed morally acceptable; Especially from perspective perspective in people. But, what happens with a wider economy?

The billionaires were correct that the poorly affected economy would harm employees. As evidence, consider what happened to the staff in the past depressions and recesses. Things were already bad before Pandemia and financial damage before things get worse. That’s the case, it’s certainly possible to get the economy as soon as possible to get out of the economy. But does the utilitarian argument protect the display view?

When making such an honest utilized calculation, three main factors are values, scope and facts. In the case of facts, conclusions must be honestly examined. It counts the damage and benefits of the frameworks who counts. Values ​​determine how the events weigh, what is considered and what is seen is bad. In fact, the social practices that occurred were made by economic damage. Many people could not work, close a lot of business or minimal levels and so on. In fact, the quiet social distance was a guy who could return to work, had more infections that caused more suffering and death. Those who do not agree with them were agreed to these agreements; But they didn’t agree (counts) and value (what are counted). Billionaires did not show any worries to think that the welfare of the workers would be nonsense and would suddenly began to take care of it. That being the case, their area of ​​concern, most of the time, was their trillion economic class. In terms of values, billions value the money, rather than employee welfare (otherwise they would provide better payments and benefits). Being this, their arguments seemed meaningful: restrictions would be economically beneficial and suffer as always damage. Those who think everyone thinks and earn the benefits of the military, which saw the value in a different way.

Billionaires are interested in their profits, which are also correct that the staff would hurt as a result of economic damage. Therefore, it was the reason to relax restrictions, because it was also better for staff. There are two main answers to this argument. The first answer is to argue that the invoices were wrong in their assessment: in their economic terms, relaxing restrictions caused more economical damage than maintaining its place. To use an analogy, imagine a business in a large building on fire. He could argue that fire trucks will pump water into the building that they will do a lot of damage and should be allowed to burn fire while employees continue to work. But that can be pointed out that allows us to burn buildings will do more damage and kill more people. Therefore, the goal is to be short-term gains and long-term disaster, the best would be the best until society is medically unnecessary.

The second answer is that people suffered because of the economic and social structures we have built for a long time. We had extensive resources to relieve the damage done, the problem is that these resources (and there are) were some hyper and lacking resources to suffer from pandemic (and many people ‘normal life’ before Pandemia). It is true that we were able to improve through the economic damage of the pandemic, all if we were willing to share the resources and wealth we have created. It was ironic that Bilibles had a repair due to many planned damage: Economic and social structures can all be radically modified, instead of focusing on elites

The lesson learned here is that it is essential to provide sacrifices, food and health care for essential areas, morally justified and laudable. Another lesson is that the sacrifices taken from a few to expand wealth is not justified and praised. What may be more frightening than the view of the trillion that people believe that they believe that they are killed in favor of economics in public impunity and without fear of consequences. I hope more people will see what this is, and they will work to change the world. Unfortunately, many have chosen a trillion side and now they open the American oligarchy.