I remember during the first days of the pandemic, when no one really knew how to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, my wife was adamant that I stay indoors due to the fact that we have small children.
At that time, I remember reflecting on the state of my freedom, and how it affected the welfare of others. I certainly felt that my wife was inhibiting my freedom, and I felt annoyed by this, but I also had to admit that misusing my freedom could inhibit the freedom of our children. If they fell ill due to my poor choices, I could end up denying them a healthy life. If my wife and I fell ill, we would inhibit our children from having parents who would nurture and care for them.
The experience led me to the conclusion that my freedom is deeply intertwined with the welfare and freedom of others.
I believe the pandemic has encouraged all of us to reflect on the tension between welfare and freedom. I believe this tension lies at the heart of nearly every ethical controversy surrounding the pandemic, on the global, national, and local levels.
Should countries impose national lockdowns for the welfare of their citizens, or should they allow citizens to exercise their individual freedoms to move about? Should schools, colleges, and businesses require masks, vaccinations, and other restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of COVID-19, or should they respect individual choice?
There are no simple answers to these questions. And this is precisely why reflection and ethical discourse are so important. Careful reflection allows us to find the fine balance between the common good and individual freedom, and to deeply examine our values.
The philosopher Socrates famously said “an unexamined life is not worth living.” This pandemic has pushed us to take Socrates’ statement seriously and perhaps a step further — if we lead an unexamined life, we may not allow ourselves, or others, to live fully.
—Gopal Gupta, Joe Dunham Distinguished Professor of Ethics