The pandemic challenges our sense of morality

The last couple of weeks have been extremely difficult for many of us regardless of where we live. We all experience the same hardships, but we are given the opportunity to evaluate our moral judgement, sense of community and empathy towards one another.

The COVD-19 crisis put to test us as individuals and as a society. In USA, we already witnessed the first backlash of public disobedience and unwillingness to stay at home and keep ourselves and others safe. As the events unfold, we see on social media how political and ideological associations have been formed and used as an excuse to form a civil disobedience and unrest. For example, people are expressing their grievances, which we all experience almost equally, but some of them refuse to even wear protective gloves and masks, claiming that the whole situation is a hoax and the virus does not exist. In addition to that, a contrast between communism and capitalism has been drawn and many people use the familiar rhetoric of freedom and equal rights to justify their reasons not to obey the government regulations.

But what would happen if every country around the world uses such excuses not to take the necessary precautions and disobey the government? Are we going to plunge into chaos and disorder?

Is that pointing us towards the exit of a civil society? What is civil society after all?

Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher born in 1588, devised the idea of a social contract which states that in a state of nature, where everything is possible, there is no form of authority or obedience, individuals are prone to harm one another, and there are not any social goods. To avoid such dire circumstance, we must comply with the social contract which is based on two conditions:

(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another, and

(2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements.

Based on the contractarianism, we make such a contract to make our life better and everything is established on that depends on our level of cooperation with one another. According to Hobbes, only the government has the necessary power to ensure that such a contract is upheld and everyone living under the power of the government must obey the contract.

What about morality?

Hobbes states that morality is not something that can be fabricated from the thin air, it is not something we can learn from reading, instead it should be imposed on us so as we can be better off as society and as individuals. According to Hobbes, human beings are predominantly self-interested driven, but we are also rational human beings.

Consider the Prisoners Dilemma situation, in which two of you are accused of arson. If you rattle the other person you go free and the other person serve three years (and the opposite), if neither of you confesses you both get free. To ensure that you benefit the most, you have to make a contract based on cooperation with the other person so as you both can benefit. However, this cooperation requires a sense of trust between one another, can we trust each other and protect ourselves individually and collectively?

When we witness instances where people decide to disobey the government regulations is a breach of the social contract or a defection- when a person breaks the contract-driven by self-interest and refusing to cooperate.

Considering everything said so far, there is another point which needs to be addressed in regards to the social contract theory. The nature of it is very rigid and it can be changed depending on the circumstances, in order a true social contract to exist all agents must agree and believe that they can be better off within the social contract rather than outside of it.

If we believe that the government does not make us better off with the regulations imposed upon us, we have the right to challenge this authority and create new rules- a new social contract.

However, a more important question arises, where is the justification that we know better, and whether this new social contract can benefit us more, especially in times of crisis.

Furthermore, are we becoming more individualistic and egoistic in our actions? Based on the utilitarianism theory- which emphasises on doing whatever we possibly can to gain pleasure and avoid pain- and the utility principle -we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number- we should strive to have more collective thinking. Despite being hedonistic theory, utilitarianism is far from being entirely egoistic by nature, quite the opposite, in certain situations we should sacrifice our own pleasure for the sake of the others, and in that sense, utilitarianism is “other-regarding”.

In times of pandemic, if we comply with the regulations, we can achieve a greater good for everyone, avoid pain, and be happy in a long term (we and our relatives probably will survive the crisis). Can we not be more other-regarding and less self-regarding?