Are you saying that if there's a risk of someone dying by you not taking up a mild inconvenience then you would be responsible for any death that may occur as a consequence of you not taking on that mild inconvenience that would of lessened the odds of someone's death?
If so then to what extent does that moral formula go?
My viewpoint is that it's useless to talk about the efficacy of masks. It doesn't matter.
The CDC has gone back & forth. There's not really solid evidence either way.
But that's irrelevant. Because we are talking about something that's such a minor inconvenience. If people who don't believe wearing masks is effective, and they're right, then yeah, they have inconvenienced themselves for no reason. If they happen to be wrong though, then they're risking other people's health and even their lives. So, if you weigh both possible outcomes, one has serious consequences. The other does not. It doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
If you're asking whether I think anyone who does not wear a mask is a murderer?
There's no intent. People don't refuse to wear masks so they can go cough on grandmas. If they did become an asymptomatic carrier, they wouldn't know it. & it's a contageous disease. There's no way to definitively prove that person A gave it to person B & C; it could be picked up anywhere.
What I do think: refusal to wear a mask is reckless and selfish behavior. If someone told me I had to do something minorly inconvenient & it had the potential to save a human life, I would just do it. No questions asked. But that's me.
Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
I mean, I'm a normal person. I'm not some paradigm of constant ethical choices. It's like any decision. You weigh the convenience, the feasibility, and the drawbacks against the benefits of whatever choice you're making.
Like, I actually mostly do cycle everywhere. Right now I'm in Chicago. It's snowy & icy & freezing. Am I gonna cycle now, even if it's better for the environment? Fuck no. I'd probably die. Risks outweigh the benefits.
Wearing a mask isn't gonna kill me though. Easy decision.
Sorry for the late response, ended up taking the dog out. It's fuckin' cold as shit.
So what would the line be? Would there be things other people consider minor inconveniences that you aren't willing to endure even if it would lessen the potential for a fatal incident? It's quite interesting the parallels between this topic and the vegan one now that I think of it.
Why are people so anti mask?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm actually curious about your position here.
Are you saying that if there's a risk of someone dying by you not taking up a mild inconvenience then you would be responsible for any death that may occur as a consequence of you not taking on that mild inconvenience that would of lessened the odds of someone's death?
If so then to what extent does that moral formula go?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My viewpoint is that it's useless to talk about the efficacy of masks. It doesn't matter.
The CDC has gone back & forth. There's not really solid evidence either way.
But that's irrelevant. Because we are talking about something that's such a minor inconvenience. If people who don't believe wearing masks is effective, and they're right, then yeah, they have inconvenienced themselves for no reason. If they happen to be wrong though, then they're risking other people's health and even their lives. So, if you weigh both possible outcomes, one has serious consequences. The other does not. It doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.
If you're asking whether I think anyone who does not wear a mask is a murderer?
There's no intent. People don't refuse to wear masks so they can go cough on grandmas. If they did become an asymptomatic carrier, they wouldn't know it. & it's a contageous disease. There's no way to definitively prove that person A gave it to person B & C; it could be picked up anywhere.
What I do think: refusal to wear a mask is reckless and selfish behavior. If someone told me I had to do something minorly inconvenient & it had the potential to save a human life, I would just do it. No questions asked. But that's me.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Once COVID-19 is resolved would you continue to wear a mask to reduce the chance of spreading the flu which could unfortunately reach an elderly person and potentially result in their death as not everybody shows flu symptoms initially as it would be a minor inconvenience compared to a terrible outcome you may not be aware you're potentially putting in the works?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes. In the future when I get the flu, I will be wearing a mask if I go out. The low flu numbers this year are impressive.
Fortunately, you can't asymtomatically spread the flu. You know when you have it & I think it should be normalized to wear a mask in public if you're sick.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Interesting. Just a heads up, we both agree on the masks point, I'm just picking your brain.
So how far would that go? Would it be exclusive to illness that could be fatal or all things that has potential to be fatal? For example, if you drive would you give up the car for cycling so that there's less potential for an unexpected crash that is fatal?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Nah, it's fine. No worries.
I mean, I'm a normal person. I'm not some paradigm of constant ethical choices. It's like any decision. You weigh the convenience, the feasibility, and the drawbacks against the benefits of whatever choice you're making.
Like, I actually mostly do cycle everywhere. Right now I'm in Chicago. It's snowy & icy & freezing. Am I gonna cycle now, even if it's better for the environment? Fuck no. I'd probably die. Risks outweigh the benefits.
Wearing a mask isn't gonna kill me though. Easy decision.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Sorry for the late response, ended up taking the dog out. It's fuckin' cold as shit.
So what would the line be? Would there be things other people consider minor inconveniences that you aren't willing to endure even if it would lessen the potential for a fatal incident? It's quite interesting the parallels between this topic and the vegan one now that I think of it.