There is no topic in recent history that has troubled the world as much as the debate revolving around COVID. People are talking – if not outright fighting – about it everywhere.
I know this is a very sensitive topic for most of us, so I will do my best to be as neutral as possible. Still, by the end of the article, you will probably be able to tell which side I’m on.
This article is not about the virus, but more about how we, as a society, deal with it. My goal is not to convince you of one side or the other - my goal is to improve the quality of social discourse by finding out together what the real debate is about.
If you take a look around, people are talking about contagion levels, death rates, countermeasures and lock-downs. But are they really? People didn’t care about those numbers during the swine flu – or any other outbreak – so why do they care now? Because those numbers now directly affect all of our lives.
Under the premise that the science revolving around COVID is rather evolving than “set in stone”, we should return to the original scientific discourse: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. And while there are enough scientists who can provide evidence for both sides of the argument, we have yet to achieve a synthesis. The scientific synthesis will be reached sometime, that is the job of scientists. The societal synthesis is also yet to be achieved, but that is our, that is everyone’s job. Even though I don’t believe that everybody needs to think the same way (that would be horrible), we, as a society, need to work on understanding what the other side is saying – out of compassion, love and genuine curiosity instead of fear and resentment. Only when we really understand what the deep-seated needs of the other side are, we can work on a future. A better future.
So what sides are there?
One side advocates a lockdown (and other measures).
• They fear the virus; they fear to get sick or to infect others.
• They act on the premise that COVID is either very deadly or very contagious, or both.
• They value safety more than freedom and act out of compassion for society and their fellow human beings alike.
• This side thinks that (temporarily) stripping people of their rights is justified when it ensures their safety and others.
The other side is against a lockdown (and other measures).
• They either don’t fear the virus or fear losing their rights and freedom more.
• Under the premise that COVID is either very deadly or very contagious, or both, one could argue that they act recklessly and don’t care about others.
• They value freedom and (individual) liberty more than safety.
• This side thinks that their rights cannot be stripped from them under no circumstances as they are more valuable.
Both sides have morally good motives. “Safety for everyone” against “Freedom for everyone”. So what is their common denominator?
The premise that COVID is either very deadly or very contagious, or both.
And while that can quickly escalate into a “my scientist says” vs. “your scientist says” kind of debate, let’s focus on the underlying issues, which are the following fundamental beliefs:
- Trust in the Media
- Trust in Government and related organizations
- The question whether or not we, as individuals, are sovereign
While I can’t tell you if you should or should not trust the Media or the Government, the question whether we are sovereign individuals is worth talking about.
Everything created by humans once started in the mind. Everything, be it of material or immaterial nature (e.g. laws) - a once had thought, which manifested itself in reality and thus became part of reality. Collectively held thoughts will inevitably determine our collective reality and ultimately, we will face a rendezvous with the very destiny we will have created for ourselves.
Therefore the question whether or not we, as individuals, are sovereign, cannot be answered by a politician or a judge; cannot be made a law, put to the vote or debated about – it can only be answered by each individual. And if we, as individuals, and therefore ultimately as a whole, do not believe that we are sovereign and have intrinsic rights, we won’t be sovereign and won’t have rights. Even though the consequences of these thoughts will not occur immediately, sooner or later they will still manifest themselves and become our reality – our “new normal”.
People don’t debate about whether there is a deadly virus or not. They don’t debate about how deadly it really is or how contagious it is. Sure, on the surface they do. But the basis for discussion has long since shifted and ultimately, they debate about the question if we are sovereign individuals; if the State should “lock us down”, track our every movement or forcibly vaccinate us – all under the pretense of safety; for the greater good. Even though all the measures that have been taken might or might not really be for the greater good, we have to be very careful about what power we hand over to the Government – no matter which side each one of us is on.
A law once made usually stays in place; power once given is rarely returned – and just like a knife that can be used as a tool or a weapon, laws can be used for the greater good or, as history tells us, for the greater evil. Law is just an opinion enforced with a gun. And while one side might like today’s opinion and force the other side to do what they think is right – that opinion can sway in a heartbeat and shoot the very leg it’s standing on today. That is the essence of the debate that is taking place now.
The question we need to ask ourselves, whether if we believe it is the right thing to do or not, is: if we are not allowed to move freely (temporarily or permanently) and don’t have control over what comes into our bodies, are we really sovereign individuals? Is being sovereign a goal worth working towards?
The only thing that’s certain is that the initiation of force ultimately ends up resulting in a bad thing one way or another.
Whatever we think the right thing is: we must not force someone to do it. Sure, people can be forced to do something, and it works for the moment – but it creates resentment, hate and violence in the long run. It’s like holding a gun to someone’s head telling him to donate money to charity. He will do what you ask him to, but he will hate you for it and the moment he has the chance, he will, in one way or another, retaliate. The initiation of force is always immoral. Doing a wrong to do a right still equates to a wrong.
If we, as a collective, think that we need to force others to do what we think is right, then, ultimately, the cycle of violence will continue to exist when it so desperately needs to vanish.
That might sound like an overly shallow statement because instinctively or anecdotally we know that there are bad people in this world, but pointing fingers and blaming each other is too convenient to be relied upon when it comes to complicated moral questions.
It’s seductively convenient to live a superficial life where the most profound decision we have to make is what color our next cell phone should have or how big our house should be. It's convenient to put the hard decisions on others and simply follow orders - but if our whole existence really is that shallow, it is a pure insult to the gift we call life. And while “social distancing” is a rather recent phenomenon, we, as a society, if not as a species, have been practicing moral distancing for far too long.
It is our moral duty to not rely on convenience.
Make no mistake: trying to find the answers to complicated ethical questions is hard work – but if we don’t consistently judge about what’s right or wrong, I fear that, one day, we won’t be able to tell a right from a wrong anymore. When there’s no good or bad left, no black or white, the only thing left of our morals will be a blurry gray mist of once thriving souls; the only existence remaining will be an existence under tyranny. We will be mere slaves, just soulless puppets in a play directed by the will of those we rely upon making moral judgments, because we will have lost the ability to make them ourselves.
And in the end, we might even deserve it.
"The pen is mightier than the sword"
-Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1839
In a world of too many swords and not enough pens, we need to re-think how we want our reality, our “new normal” to be.
I don’t claim to know all the answers. In fact, I know almost none. But I will dedicate my life to work on myself and finding them, and I encourage you to do the same – because then, and only then, we will – together – be able to achieve real freedom and real peace. Today’s thoughts shape tomorrow’s reality.
And even if finding answers is hard, I believe that asking the right questions at the right time is a start.
You can talk someone into staying home, just like you can talk someone into having no fear of going outside – forcing one or the other is wrong. We should start to talk to each other again.
Before we speak, we must listen. Really listen. We must be respectful and caring about what the other person really wants and fears. Only when we really understand that, we will reach unity. And when there’s unity, there will be billions of pens and no swords anymore.
That might be overly idealistic, but everything starts in the mind.