Amidst this COVID-19 time, if you find yourself as a strong supporter of the social distancing, seclusion, quarantining, and shelter-in-place ordinances, once this passes, will you also find yourself as a strong supporter of these ordinances for other factors that have the same, if not higher, death rates, such as car accidents, sexually-active people which seek abortions, etc?
I don’t know that I’m a “seclusionist” as you say, but when this is over, the only change for me will be a return to attending Mass, teaching RCIA, and eating out now and again.
The love of Christ compels us to both obedience and charity. I am pro obedience and pro charity.
Those other things you mentioned are necessary evils, such as car accidents occurring because we use cars to get around, or are the result of evil behavior that happens due to human beings, in the example of sexual immorality and abortion. With seclusion, we reduce the rate of death from this disease by making sure that hospitals don’t fill up. If me staying home more often would reduce the rate of abortions, there would be a good argument for it, however it doesn’t. These two scenarios (Coronavirus seclusion and staying home ordinarily) just aren’t equivalent is the main point I’m making.
I am really unsure of what you are asking here, can you expand a bit more.
Car accidents aren’t contagious…
I assume the question, clearly posed, would be:
if you support the use of state imposed sanctions, backed up as necessary with force, to reduce sufferring and death from Covid-19 infection, do you also support such state measures against
abortion, car accidents etc
My answer, as a non-believer, is that morally is socially determined - i.e. that which people agree between themselves. In this case there is a consensus about the need to protect society from the impacts of an uncontrolled pandemic. Without such a consensus, state-imposed sanctions are not only unwarranted but in the long run ineffective as the instability of fascist societies makes clear.
This is a bit of an aside, but wouldn’t that mean that any law made with the majority of the people’s agreement cannot be immoral by definition? How would this view prevent the tyranny of the majority, or account for it?
It is my bishop who has asked us to follow the health official and government officials. I am obedient to my bishop, as all Catholics should be.
Apples and oranges. Non-sequitur.
What you mention requires prayer and prudence, but this is an unprecedented global assault on the gift of life.
I think because it’s temporary, and not “no Masses anymore, ever”, it’s not too much to ask of us. Although I know it is scary and painful for a lot of people and their livelihoods.
Amen. Same here.
I am going to assume you are sincere in asking this, but I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. It’s a non sequitur, apples and oranges, as @po18guy pointed out.
I’m going to stay as safe as I can, and I will do it as long as I see fit. Others can do what they will.
So I guess you are an “anti-seclusion member?” I guess we have a new batch of labels now?
Well once the “seclusion” in Spain is over, maybe they wont need the ice skating rink they used for a makeshift morgue, which is now full outside of Madrid.
Pretending all of this is alarmist, making fun of people and calling them fear-mongers is just natural selection in action.
Only here’s the problem.
Seclusion or not isn’t a black and white question.
On the one extreme is everybody hiding out in a private room and never emerging for the duration.
The other extreme is business as usual.
What is actually happening is something in the middle.
My state shut down schools first. And forbade visitors to nursing homes. Then churches and restaurants. Then asked people to refrain from non essential shopping and business. Then actually shut down non essential business.
There are even more hard core measures the state could do.
We don’t have curfews yet, but other states do.
People go to walking trails, but playgrounds are shut down.
So, to go around saying pro-exclusion or anti exclusion is too vague.
The logic applies equally:
COVID deaths occur because we are social beings, and may also have origins from malicious behavior of human beings.
Us staying out of automobiles would reduce the rate of death from car accidents by making sure that roads don’t fill up.
Having sexually-active persons, who seek abortions, remain socially distant from one another would reduce the rate of abortions.
Might you be able to share a deeper difference between these that might help me understand your perspective better. The way I see it is that deaths are caused either by accident or on purpose. Do you see a third option?
Yes and no! Morality in my view generally stems from evolved behaviour in humans. We have, also, consciousness which probably developed as a side-effect of some other evolutionary advantage. With our consciousness we are able to learn from the past experience of human beings and to apply principles we agree on. Generally there is no ‘majority’ on everything. On each issue there is a majority. This is not tyranny, which extends over multiple issues.
In my state, the governor ‘ordered’ people to stay home except for essential things, etc., but there are no new “ordinances” that have been created, or laws passed, or martial law instituted.
As for the folks who drive crazy and seek abortions, after all this is over, I’d prefer they stay home and work on their self-control issues, away from me, at a very wide “social distance.”
That said, I do believe that there could be some slippery slope type legal precedents being set here and there that will bite us in the rump later.
I wonder where and why strong supporters of ordinances striving to limit suffering and death draw the line. And my overall hope is to learn how to better counteract the fear of suffering and death, to help spread the freedom of living, suffering, and dying for Christ.
Car accidents are caused by one person directly contacting another. And in the case of pile ups, the accident is spread from one person to another to another. That is similar enough for me to be considered contagious.