There’s an old French saying, “Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner”, which means roughly “to understand all is to forgive all”. When someone does something that seems bad, you might hear a bystander say, “I know how that guy felt.” The observation is generally viewed as at least partially excusing the behavior, even though there is no logical correlation between understanding something and the morality of the underlying action.
To see this point, assume for the moment that there is an omniscient God. That God would, by definition, understand all. Does that mean that no immoral act is ever committed? Clearly not.
I worry that this misconception is being applied to the coronavirus pandemic. When we compare the response of various countries, say the US and Western Europe vs. Australasia, there’s a tendency to explain the differences in terms of all sorts of factors. These might include climate, culture, legal systems, previous exposure to SARS, state capacity, density, corruption, education levels, etc. Some of these (such as climate) are completely beyond our control. But not all.
An omniscient social scientist, that is, one with a God-like understanding of the world, might say it was “inevitable” that Italy would end up with 5000 times more deaths than Taiwan. But while that claim might be true, it has no moral implications. It would be no different that saying that given Hitler’s genetic make-up and environment it was inevitable that he’d end up being the worst human being ever. It is important not to mix up positive and normative claims. (Sorry for invoking Godwin’s Law so quickly.)
We don’t make normative claims to feel good. Well, we do to some extent, but the main purpose of moral claims is to do better in the future. Scolding has value. When I was scolded as a child, I was chastened and did better for at least a brief period of time.
I’m not saying that Italy should try to remake itself in the model of Taiwan. Overall, I’d rather live in Italy. Covid-19 is just one of many issues. But I’d also suggest that Italy (and the US) not simply assume that any differences in the severity of the coronavirus epidemic are not possibly due to correctable failings in their country.
Another great French line, translated as “everyone has their reasons”, occurred in the film Rules of the Game. (BTW, this Jean Renoir film is one of the all time greats—you might wish to watch it if you are bored at home. I saw it when young and it went right over my head, and then again 5 years ago and was blown away.)
Yes, everyone has their reasons, as does every country. But are they the right reasons? (From a utilitarian perspective)
READER COMMENTS
Lorenzo from Oz
May 11 2020 at 11:11pm
On avoidable policy errors; such as really dumb, as in scientifically unsubstantiated, “food pyramid” recommendations that encourage poor metabolic health which increase vulnerability to disease generally.
A few years ago, I got told by my local medical centre that I had high blood pressure, was pre-diabetic and have vitamin D deficiency and it was suggested I lose weight (but don’t use drugs to do so: which was good advice). No connection was drawn between those three findings, nor with being overweight. Lots of reading and listening to lectures by various medicos and scientists later, I find they were intimately connected.
We spend huge sums on health funnelled through health departments and government funded medical centres (in most Western countries). Yet the level of failure to follow the scientific research on nutrition is astonishing.
(The thing that most amused me was the US scientist who is a critique of the standard view of cancer and suggests that the importance of mitochrondria and bodily energetics in health suggests that perhaps the Chinese energy based–“qi” or “chi”–medical approach might not be entirely wrong and was worth looking at scientifically.)
Brian Donohue
May 12 2020 at 8:32am
It’s funny that some determinists think morality is a thing.
John Alcorn
May 12 2020 at 11:26am
Another purpose of moral claims is to do better now.
Let’s take Dr. Sumner’s example: Italy vs Taiwan in pandemic policy. Looking to the future, perhaps Italy should begin to invest in emulation of Taiwan. But now, Italy probably can’t switch quickly to Taiwan’s policy, institutions, practices, norms. Italy quickly should compare other countries’ policies (panoramic sideward glances); assess each policy’s accessibilty and local value for Italy; imagine also new policies; and adopt the best accessible mix.
My intuition is that something like Sweden’s policy, but with sharper, smarter focus on shielding eldercare centers (and other vulnerable demographics), is the best candidate for accessible emulation at this stage of the pandemic in Italy.
Compare Nils Karlson, Charlotta Stern, and Daniel B. Klein (Ratio Institute, Sweden), “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s” (Foreign Affairs, 12 May 2020).
John Alcorn
May 12 2020 at 11:51am
Here is the link to the little essay by Nils Karlson et al.:
Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s
Scott Sumner
May 12 2020 at 12:07pm
I don’t entirely agree about Taiwan and Italy. There are policies such as mask wearing and testing that can be adopted quite rapidly.
In contrast, it would take a long time to make Italy’s culture more like Sweden’s culture, even in the event that were desirable (which is not obvious to me.)
John Alcorn
May 12 2020 at 12:47pm
Italy’s economy depends heavily on tourism. Should Italy screen, test, and quarantine tourists? Or will tourists avoid Italy until Italy emulates Taiwan?
You seem to think that emulating Sweden requires internalizing Sweden’s culture, but that emulating Taiwan merely involves adopting a couple of simple available technologies. My intuitions are reverse: Sweden can be readily emulated because private adaptation, minimal regulations, and salient segmentation (shielding) are Sweden’s main mechanisms. Emulation of Taiwan requires cultural changes in norms about privacy, surveillance, collective action, and so on.
I could be wrong!
John Alcorn
May 13 2020 at 3:09pm
In Taiwan, there is a policy of forcible quarantine for persons who had contact with persons who are confirmed cases. See the webpage, “Prevention and Control of COVID-19 in Taiwan,” at the website of Taiwan Centers for Disease Control. Here are excerpts about quarantine of contacts:
Compare Tyler Cowen, “Forced Quarantines Are Not the American Way” (Bloomberg op-ed, 13 May 2020). Dr. Cowen’s criticisms focus on forced isolation of confirmed cases, but his arguments extend readily to forcible home quarantine of contacts—which, by the way, increases risk of transmission among family members—and to forcible isolation of contacts who violate home quarantine. Dr. Cowen writes:
Prevalence of infection introduces another crucial dimension, at least for utilitarians. It’s one thing to impose forcible quarantine on the few, when prevalence is near zero, in order to protect the many from new outbreaks. It’s quite another to impose quarantine on cases and contacts when prevalence is substantial. Dr. Cowen writes:
Mark Bahner
May 13 2020 at 9:48pm
You’ve never heard of “climate control”?
Seriously…it’s both possible and important to raise humidity levels in buildings in the winter:
How humidity may affect COVID-19
And it’s also possible to use LED UV lights to stimulate vitamin D production:
LED UV lights stimulate vitamin D production
Finally, even incredibly inexpensive and primitive DIY air filter can reduce particulate levels in indoor environments:
DIY air filter for under $30
Climate is not beyond our control.
anon/portly
May 14 2020 at 1:42pm
“But I’d also suggest that Italy (and the US) not simply assume that any differences in the severity of the coronavirus epidemic are not possibly due to correctable failings in their country.”
Well, that would be nuts, obviously. But at the same time you wouldn’t want to assume the other way, would you? Just assume that differences are due to correctable failings?
“An omniscient social scientist, that is, one with a God-like understanding of the world, might say it was ‘inevitable’ that Italy would end up with 5000 times more deaths than Taiwan.”
Why would an omniscient social scientist talk this way? I would think an omniscient social scientist would do something like take a census (being omniscient, they wouldn’t have to rely on sampling) of “alternative pandemics that could have happened” (instances where with minimally improbable tweaking, we get a viral pandemic of similar stature to the current one, with the current one not happening) and then summarize the results.
If Italy ends up with 5000X more deaths than Singapore every time, then sure the OSS would say it was “inevitable.”
Of course we would really like the OSS to give us his or her take on the “correctable failings” issue, come up with a useful metric for us. Here this post (sort of inadvertently) brings up an interesting issue. What is a “failing” and what isn’t? Suppose in the supposed census described above Country A tended to have 3x the deaths (per y number of people) than Country B. Would it be possible for Country B to have more “correctable failings” than Country A?
Suppose also in this particular pandemic Country B happens to have 3X the deaths of Country A, a reversal of what our OSS would find to be the “expected” outcome. Let’s suppose also the two countries that Country A typically has 3X the deaths because they do 3X worse on the “correctable failings” metric. If we just mindlessly scold Country B, we’re scolding the wrong country. It’s like when parents scold a child without doing a little digging, sometimes they scold the wrong one.
The mention of Hitler in the post suggests, I think, that “failings” have a quality of evil. But is every “failing” an evil?
Suppose we look at Soccer teams. Italy is currently ranked 13th by FIFA, Taiwan 138th (USA 22nd). Obviously Taiwan has many “correctable failings,” as I assume if they put their minds to it, as a country, Taiwan could be very good in soccer. But I suspect that “correctable failings” are far more on the minds of the Azzurri fans, who perhaps view the current state of their team as a national disgrace (“Only 9 places ahead of the Americans? Mamma mia!”).
I think it’s possible that if we were going to scold some person or group of persons in either Italy or Taiwan, when it comes to soccer, we might choose to scold some Italians first. Maybe if some Italian club owners or players were less greedy or petty (not a completely implausible scenario, maybe), Italy would be ranked in the top 3 right now.
That’s a sort of “evil” failing where scolding seems appropriate, maybe. What if Italy’s failings in soccer are not so evil? What if there were nutritional issues – maybe Italian soccer players, at various stages in their development, don’t eat as well or as healthily as the players in other countries. Maybe Italy has too much good food and wine (I’ve heard this). That seems like an eminently correctable failing. Yet maybe the players would rather keep enjoying the good food and drink and win a little less.
All of which is to say that when it comes to Italy’s coronavirus response, I don’t want to scold them. Maybe some of their “correctable failings” are things they really don’t want to correct. Maybe some of their correctable failings are not so much things they are doing “wrong,” just things they could be doing better – we don’t scold children for those things, do we?
Of course maybe also some of their “correctable failings” are things that do merit scolding. But I think maybe the “scolding” bar is being set a tad too low here.
John Alcorn
May 15 2020 at 7:11pm
In South Korea, there is a policy/practice, publicly to disclose detailed information about the location of persons who test positive for the virus. This policy/practice provides timely information for private adaptation by spontaneous spatial distancing. It is partly a policy (e.g., absence of privacy regulation), partly a practice (apps, behavioral adjustment, etc.).
A new study by David Argente (Penn State U.), Chang-Tai Hsieh (U. of Chicago), and Munseob Lee (UC-San Diego) attempts to assess the effectiveness of this policy/practice. See their article, “The Cost of Privacy: Welfare Effects of the Disclosure of COVID-19 Cases” (Becker-Friedman Institute, 14 May 2020). The authors model and calibrate two-year counterfactual simulations of (a) unmitigated pandemic, with no disclosure of locational information, (b) South Korea’s policy/practice, (c) 3-months isolation of districts where infection arises (“partial shutdown”), and (d) 3-months general lockdown at the peak of the pandemic.
Here are excerpts:
Of course, take all models with a large grain of salt.
Again, questions arise about whether South Korea’s policy/practice would transfer well to different countries: Might (or may?) South Korea’s policy/practice be adopted piecemeal by, say, the USA or Italy or Sweden? Does the effectiveness of the policy/practice depend on social norms (or on complementary institutions)? And is the policy/practice effective only at the outset of a pandemic (or at least after suppression of prevalence to almost zero, after lockdown in response to a first wave)?
Comments are closed.