Coronavirus is a Moral Problem
Before the Coronavirus, I rarely thought of visiting my family as a moral action.
I didn't think of morality like that-- as something under-girding the most mundane decisions.
Uniquely, since Coronavirus can be asymptomatic and because of lack of testing in the US, everyone is now endowed with a hefty moral yoke. If you, as a potential carrier, go outside for a walk, are you putting those around you at risk? The careful citizen would say yes. Does that make outdoor activity, somehow, immoral? It certainly seems that way.
Other choices, like flying have become more problematic. The moral weight of flying, for those who are environmentally conscious, was already heavy. Now, it carries a more immediate cost.
Walking about has become a tense and often awkward ordeal. Mothers call nervously to their children as you pass by. The mistrust is implicit. But when you wave and smile they wave back, though not as readily. If there is no street to cross to, runners and bikers will visibly hold their breath or turn their head away from one another.
I see people on the street give the homeless an especially wide birth. Perhaps it's because we know they don't have the means to protect themselves from the disease. More likely, their socially ascribed dirtiness, makes them seem especially likely carriers.
Where deadly diseases have been deemed immoral in the past, a disease which shows no symptoms means even the healthy are pre-emptively guilty. The crime of sickness is universal if it cannot be proven one way or the other.
Young people, when I ask what concerns them about the disease, tell me they are worried not of getting it, but of passing it to others. They are not afraid of the virus for their own sake, they're afraid of blame. Of being responsible for the sickness and potentially, the death, of someone else. So when young people get sick they immediately feel anxious. This anxiety is less about their own health than about the attendant blame.
If you get sick, what did you do wrong? The question echoes past diseases where sickness was earned, not given. Did you disinfect your groceries? Did you wash your hands or did you touch your mail too soon? Whatever the case, the disease is your fault. Further, if you pass it along, that's your fault too. Worse, if someone you know and love gets it, you know you should and certainly will, feel guilty.
In the 19th century, Cholera was ravaging Europe. Having learned a thing or two about quarantine from the plague, European health officials decided to ban ships with unclean licenses-- ships which came from areas with known outbreaks.
While "unclean" sounds undoubtedly Biblical, I don't think we've changed much from sheep's blood and beaked masks.
We have modern unclean licenses. This time, they're race, economic status, unfamiliarity, or some combination of all. We are all unclean now. While most of us will not catch the virus, we have all had it, if only in the eyes of others.
I didn't think of morality like that-- as something under-girding the most mundane decisions.
Uniquely, since Coronavirus can be asymptomatic and because of lack of testing in the US, everyone is now endowed with a hefty moral yoke. If you, as a potential carrier, go outside for a walk, are you putting those around you at risk? The careful citizen would say yes. Does that make outdoor activity, somehow, immoral? It certainly seems that way.
Other choices, like flying have become more problematic. The moral weight of flying, for those who are environmentally conscious, was already heavy. Now, it carries a more immediate cost.
Walking about has become a tense and often awkward ordeal. Mothers call nervously to their children as you pass by. The mistrust is implicit. But when you wave and smile they wave back, though not as readily. If there is no street to cross to, runners and bikers will visibly hold their breath or turn their head away from one another.
I see people on the street give the homeless an especially wide birth. Perhaps it's because we know they don't have the means to protect themselves from the disease. More likely, their socially ascribed dirtiness, makes them seem especially likely carriers.
Where deadly diseases have been deemed immoral in the past, a disease which shows no symptoms means even the healthy are pre-emptively guilty. The crime of sickness is universal if it cannot be proven one way or the other.
Young people, when I ask what concerns them about the disease, tell me they are worried not of getting it, but of passing it to others. They are not afraid of the virus for their own sake, they're afraid of blame. Of being responsible for the sickness and potentially, the death, of someone else. So when young people get sick they immediately feel anxious. This anxiety is less about their own health than about the attendant blame.
If you get sick, what did you do wrong? The question echoes past diseases where sickness was earned, not given. Did you disinfect your groceries? Did you wash your hands or did you touch your mail too soon? Whatever the case, the disease is your fault. Further, if you pass it along, that's your fault too. Worse, if someone you know and love gets it, you know you should and certainly will, feel guilty.
+ + +
In the 19th century, Cholera was ravaging Europe. Having learned a thing or two about quarantine from the plague, European health officials decided to ban ships with unclean licenses-- ships which came from areas with known outbreaks.
While "unclean" sounds undoubtedly Biblical, I don't think we've changed much from sheep's blood and beaked masks.
We have modern unclean licenses. This time, they're race, economic status, unfamiliarity, or some combination of all. We are all unclean now. While most of us will not catch the virus, we have all had it, if only in the eyes of others.
Comments
Post a Comment