Provide one such framework that justifies the certainty that innocent people will be harmed, in exchange for imaginary numbers in a computer being incremented ("economic activity"). If there are LOADS of them, it shouldn't be that hard. Yet, you have not done so.
The same framework that justifies the collective driving of automobiles for personal transportation which results in the deaths of about 35,000 innocent people per year, in return for measurable improvement to "economic activity", as told by the imaginary numbers in my computer.
As I said, that analogy is false. The magnitude of the damage is so much higher for the coronavirus, and the people endangered are already those most vulnerable in society.
Let me put it to you this way: my parents are in no danger from you crashing your car. They are if you go out and start resuming "normal activity" to increment your fake numbers in a computer. Is scoring imaginary points really worth endangering my parents?
You seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble finding a single justification for endangering people at this scale, even though there are apparently LOADS of frameworks that would say it's okay. Why is that?
The analogy is not "false", it's used to show you that we all decide how many lost lives we find to be acceptable for modern society to function.
Your parents have a non-zero statistical probability of dying from a car crash, the same way that they have a non-zero statistical probability of dying from COVID due to "normal activity". The probability of the latter is undeniably higher than that of the former, and you appear to consider the former to be acceptable.
I mean no disrespect to your parents, but you have to accept that for some people, they draw the line differently, and the probability threshold is within their limit.
> You seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble finding a single justification for endangering people at this scale, even though there are apparently LOADS of frameworks that would say it's okay. Why is that?
I'm going to emphasize "At this scale", in your statement, because you're implicitly arguing that THIS scale is unacceptable. I'm simply arguing that, while that may be true for you — and for the record, it's also unacceptable to me — you have to understand that different people have different acceptable thresholds. You think that one loses the moral right to entertain the deaths of innocent people at some arbitrary threshold. But it's arbitrary, and unique to you.
Again, I have not stated that I accept 35,000 deaths per year so capitalism can continue on its merry way. I again invite you to quote where I have said so, if you don't believe me. I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths.
> I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths.
at some point the number of deaths is high enough that you decide that "the scale is different and this can no longer be justified". I'm simply stating that this limit is arbitrary, and debatable.
Since when does enforceability have any impact on whether something is a human right or not? One aspect of "human rights" is that they are universal. They apply to both me, you, and everyone else on the planet equally. And, it is entirely reasonable to believe that nobody has the right to end my life but me. So, yes, I believe 0 is the correct number of lives to be sacrificed for economic activity, even though we don't come close to that practically.
reply