It almost seems like a movie intro where the sides of protagonist and antagonist are established along the plot line of a global pandemic, or a rather bizarre remake of that British classic Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy, and paradox to the underlying meaning of life, with front row seats.
But what is what?
I have seen it framed before as an "all for one, or every man for himself question. And I wonder how the notions of individual freedoms are balanced against each other. Take the “wear a mask” question as an example. People claim it is an individual right not to wear a mask but with those rights come responsibility or don’t they come with responsibility. I have been taught they sort of come as a packaged deal. So claim the right and shirk the responsibility?
In a rather odd sense, the responsibility that comes with individual rights should result in a we are all in this together all for one sort of result. If rights come with responsibility then there is no difference between “one for all” and “every man for himself”.
But if responsibility is not coupled with rights then there is a big difference. Humanity, ethics and morality should lead us all in the same direction if it weren’t for the notion that rights and responsibility are not commingled.
Can I demand it is my right and deny the consequence of exercising that right? Or does the right; grasped, require a sober evaluation of the consequence of the demand and responsibility for the result. And which of us has a right over an other? My right… your right… our responsibility.
It is poor human form to demand a right for yourself and deny it to another.
I think this question is very fitting in a pejorative sense, because the answers, for there are many, exist below the perceived opinions bearing on whose opinions are relevant to which sets of requirements that tie rights to responsibilities.
The existential questions have not yet been established, to warrant the essential ones, and it is necessary and essential to uncover them.
Our opinions are phenomenally unfounded, since the objective criteria have not allowed the opinions of a possible pathogenesis transcend the point where a possible cure can be conceived.
The underlying opinions regarding the basic causation: vis. that regarding the source of infection is still on a primal level; it may be a bio-offensive weapon go haywire, or a fraudulently representative methodical systemically covered socio-economic application to overcome this uncertain political stalemate, or other more convincing ways of interpretation; that it was just the usual repetition of lands.ic infection.
The bottom one is, these existential markets can not yet tie a personal ethical responsibility to the underlying moral question of who can be held to the right of wearing masks.
I think that question must be relegated when the objectives become more understood in terms of understanding the more substantial under lying issues.
We are still too early in the epidemic, in my opinion.
It seems as if Trump doesn’t realize what he’s doing. So who is going to listen to Trump? His supporters. And his supporters don’t realize the risk they are taking. So, in a way he is genocidal to his own supporters. It would be interesting to see the politics behind the statistics. And it would also be interesting to reveal where all this bail out money is coming from? Shit, thanks you 1 percent for having saved up all this money for us in our time of need. It’s time to pay for your largess.