Read on Twitter
Thread:
There are many issues worthy of serious debate in a civilised society. There are ethical questions and moral dilemmas for which we have no clear cut solutions; Euthanasia, abortion, welfare, foreign aid. It is perfectly acceptable to be on either side of such debates.
There are many issues worthy of serious debate in a civilised society. There are ethical questions and moral dilemmas for which we have no clear cut solutions; Euthanasia, abortion, welfare, foreign aid. It is perfectly acceptable to be on either side of such debates.
But there are other areas of morality and ethics which are settled. The clear cut answers exist and ought to be understood by the majority in any decent society.
Over the past year, we have found ourselves debating such issues. They've been presented as difficult moral problems.
Over the past year, we have found ourselves debating such issues. They've been presented as difficult moral problems.
New conundrums never faced or considered previously:
Is it ethical to intentionally let one group of people die because you have a vague hunch it might let another group of people live?
Is the life of an 85 year old worth saving as much as the life of a five year old?
Is it ethical to intentionally let one group of people die because you have a vague hunch it might let another group of people live?
Is the life of an 85 year old worth saving as much as the life of a five year old?
Are we all collectively responsible for the spread of respiratory viruses in the population?
Should the young be expected to sacrifice everything to protect the very old?
Does the government have the right to prevent families from being together?
Should the young be expected to sacrifice everything to protect the very old?
Does the government have the right to prevent families from being together?
Should teachers be permitted to psychologically abuse the children in their care because they feel irrationally and ignorantly afraid for their own safety?
Should healthy people be conditioned to view themselves as sick and potentially deadly to others until proven otherwise?
Should healthy people be conditioned to view themselves as sick and potentially deadly to others until proven otherwise?
Is it ok to force people to prove that they have taken part in an unnecessary medical experiment before they can participate in free society?
Is it ethical to stoke up division and hatred on the grounds of people's health status?
Is it ethical to stoke up division and hatred on the grounds of people's health status?
The answer to all of these questions is no. Previous generations of human beings all knew it was no. None of these questions should require any head scratching or complicated moral philosophising. And yet for the past twelve months, we have been bombarded by a mainstream media
trying to make us view them as 'unimaginably difficult scenarios' or 'impossible choices'. Thousands of words have been written on how ministers & healthcare professionals are wrestling with these unprecedented circumstances.
The few people who have sought to point out the fact
The few people who have sought to point out the fact
that these aren't new or difficult questions have been shouted down as conspiratorial nutcases and selfish contrarians.
A society which begins debating these issues seriously & legitimising attitudes which have long been viewed as disgustingly wrong is a very sick one indeed.
A society which begins debating these issues seriously & legitimising attitudes which have long been viewed as disgustingly wrong is a very sick one indeed.
In truth, thirteen months ago we opened our doors to evil and said,
"Come on in, make yourself comfortable. Stay as long as you like."
And now we are pathetically trying to justify our decision by presenting it as debatable.
It's not.
"Come on in, make yourself comfortable. Stay as long as you like."
And now we are pathetically trying to justify our decision by presenting it as debatable.
It's not.
