Sahar Joakim: Lessons from COVID: Utilitarian in Theory and Egoist in Practice

If perceived threat to oneself implies a greater rate of individual compliance with recommendations from authorities, is it ethical to exaggerate threat to increase compliance? Few would vote to arm the government with the use of manipulation as a tool to control the people. Yet privately and on a smaller scare, we do this. Parents to their children, for example, and teachers to their students, we exaggerate threat to steal compliance. There is a mismatch, therefore, between what we believe in theory and our actual practices. In theory, it would not be ethical to use manipulated data to manipulate people. But why not? Doing so would be best for the greatest number of humans. This is foundational for utilitarianism which many praise—in theory. Few admit to a preference for personal advantage when the good of the people is at stake. Many argue against Glaucon’s praise of injustice grounded in ethical egoism and instead cheer for utilitarian policies. Yet outrage arose when Italy distributed scarce medical resources based on utilitarianism. Is it unethical to set, as policy, an upper-age limit on eligibility for life-saving ventilators? In other news, many Americans argued that the government should not be able to impose face mask or social distance orders for the greater good of the masses, that to do so would infringe on personal liberty. What happened to valuing utilitarian justice for all? It turns out, or so I argue, based on actual reactions during today’s pandemic, that we are utilitarian in theory and egoist in practice. If correct, this conclusion teaches us about human nature. Primitive, intrinsic, or instinctual reactions are unaffected by data gathered by medical scientists and people will in practice ignore recommendations from authorities when it is individually advantageous. We are ethical egoists in practice.