To the extent we believe *selfishly first* to be the rule, we probably shouldn't bother with that argument for masks either. Some don't drive to reduce the world's carbon footprint, possibly shifting the balance of power in favor of those that would produce larger ecological destruction if they could benefit at all. The working poor, especially in the service sector, will continue to foot the bill of our collective actions, and those that break quarantine to travel from red to green counties for vacation will continue to exact this transaction.
The experience of this pandemic and our ongoing discussion of *free will* make me wonder about the ethics of schadenfreude. As I watch the ineptitude of my political representatives (expert scientists not exempt), blundering their way past 1/4 of the world's recorded COVID deaths (512K versus 129K), I can't help but think about RogerC's comment regarding *great-great-great-grand-dad*. What are the ethics of preparing to profit from investments in realty, vacant storefronts, and other possible niches created in the wake of COVID deaths? If 1700s America had Amazon, how could I reason about the ethics of allowing Amazon to profit excessively disproportionately on the slave trade? On the one hand, I would feel shame from the purchasing of another human being, on the other I would feel shame to allow all power to concentrate into a pool from which it may never again be liberated. Must it always be the case that to the most exploitative goes the spoils? -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
