Contribute

​ ​ ​ ​
News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle

Opinion

The choice is ours – how opening up will turn

us into moralists of daily life
Sridhar Venkatapuram

Sun 18 Jul 2021 09.00 BST

S
o the prime minister says that with the removal of Covid restrictions we
will now be able to make our own “informed decisions” about what we will
and will not do. Generally, we might feel it’s a sign of a good government
and a good society that it allows and enables its members to make their
own informed decisions about how they want to live their lives. But it’s hard to
rejoice at the removal of most Covid restrictions with the current dramatic rise in
new infections. When more than 100 experts have signed an open letter in the
Lancet calling the full easing of restrictions “dangerous and premature”, it can feel
less like relief and freedom, and more like we’re being released into a wild unknown
– and one that comes with ever-increasing ethical burdens on us as individuals.

For in this new chapter, we need to recognise that the transfer of decision-making
powers from government to us is not just about practical decisions but also about
important ethical ones. We’ll make decisions about what we choose to do as we
continue to spread a harmful new disease to one another causing various kinds of
harms. And the risk of dangerous variants increases with each new infection. Let’s
not forget that the Alpha variant was created in the UK and quickly spread around
the world. So the possibility of us creating new variants also has global implications.

One kind of ethical decision is how to balance risks and benefits. Many people, from
those marching in anti-lockdown demonstrations to Lord Sumption, a former
supreme court justice, have been decrying the unjustness of Covid restrictions. A
generous understanding of this view is that the costs in terms of loss of personal
liberties as well as curtailment of so much social life, including economic activity, to
lower the risk of infections are far greater than the benefits in terms of lives saved.
Perhaps an extreme reading of the view would be that personal freedoms are so
ethically important that nothing, no gain, is worth infringing on those freedoms.

While critics of the lockdowns respond to national policies, individuals can and will
instinctively apply a similar kind of reasoning in thinking about how to go about
their day in the new reality. On an hourly basis, we have the gift, or burden, of
balancing risks and benefits with respect to ourselves, our household and beyond.
Are the thousands of people who are deleting the NHS contact tracing app ahead of
19 July clearly showing that they value doing whatever they want – their freedoms –
more than the potential harms to themselves or others from their actions, not to
mention the social resources that may be affected? Or perhaps they don’t trust in its
accuracy?

Another way to think about the ethics of our decisions is to recall the early part of
lockdowns last year. The phrase “we are all in this together” reflected the idea that
we are all vulnerable, and all of us must cooperate to contain the threat and
minimise harm. Laws and regulations imposed restrictions to ensure that everyone
fell into line. But how key were they? Perhaps many people would have adjusted
their behaviour in order to protect themselves and one another with just a strong
request from the relevant authorities. While we value personal freedoms, we also
value staying alive, good health and the wellbeing of others.

Consider behaviour change during the peak of the HIV/Aids pandemic. No

government made it illegal to have sex without a condom. Gay men, in particular,
made condom use the norm. This was useful in enabling sex, one of the pleasures of
a good life, and worked as a mark of mutual respect for each other’s wellbeing.
 In the face of Such sexual ethics not only helped contain HIV
unknown dangers, infections; they were also the foundation for social
people may withdraw cohesion and allowed progress towards greater social
from social equality. Protecting one another from preventable death
interactions and suffering can lead to personal and social
transformations – in letting somebody see that his or her
life is as valuable as your own, we ground our belief in
equality of rights and opportunities. The parallels between the instrumental use and
ethical dimensions of a condom and a face mask are not hard to see.

However, it would be a mistake to think that changing the ethical norms of how we
relate to one another is easy. As people become emboldened to do what they want,
there will undoubtedly be greater interpersonal conflicts, as one person feels that
their health is being put at risk by another’s activities.

In the face of unknown dangers, people may withdraw from social interactions.
They will be less willing to go out or use public facilities if social distancing and
masks are no longer obligatory. Then there is the burden of shame for doing the
wrong thing. That is, shame for not protecting oneself better or for being identified
as causing the illness in others. People will become more reserved in speaking with
neighbours and social networks for fear of revealing too much of the “risky
behaviours”, with the social censure that follows.

Without laws and regulations coordinating people’s behaviours, how effective we’ll
be in protecting ourselves and others will depend, yes, on the ever-changing
dynamics of the virus but also on the ethical values we express in dealing with one
another.

Let’s remember this pandemic spreads through human interaction and the extent of
the spread tracks not only government aptitude but also the nature of our
relationships.

Do we want our social ethics to support personal freedoms, no matter the cost to
ourselves and others. Or do they support mutual respect, care and concern? We can
come out of this pandemic stronger as individuals who take more control of our own
health; we can also do justice to those who have died by building a fairer society. To
achieve both, perhaps more than ever it’s wise to act like we are all in this together.

Dr Sridhar Venkatapuram is a senior lecturer in Global Health and Philosophy,

King’s College, London

Dr Sridhar Venkatapuram is a senior lecturer in Global Health and Philosophy, King’s

College, London
 … as you're joining us from India, we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions
have placed their trust in the Guardian’s high-impact journalism since we started
publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty,
solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have
recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all, and
fiercely independent.
With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide
trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence,
offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never
mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.
Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read,
regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in
information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events,
understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take
meaningful action.
We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical
events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new
American administration, Brexit, and the world's slow emergence from a global
pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful
reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising
from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course
to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or
small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Guardian from
as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us
with a regular amount each month. Thank you.

Support the Guardian Remind me in August

comments (907)
This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your
Guardian account to join the discussion next time