Hello,

I'm new to this group, please forgive me if this discussion already exists. As the global response to COVID-19 has unfolded I've been wondering how societies recent actions might inform the debate about normative ethics, more specifically, between Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism.

It seems to me that a Utilitarian approach to the pandemic would be to literally do nothing. If approximately 5% of the population (a high estimate) eventually succumb to COVID-19, 95% of us would be better off just going about business as usual. The greater good for the greater number of people would clearly be served by simply letting the most susceptible die.

Kantian ethics, on the other hand, would lead us to take the same actions currently being taken by most societies around the world. Our actions meet the standard of the categorical imperative, they are: Universal (or at least they are intended to be), Humane (the majority of society is sacrificing for the most vulnerable, clearly treating them as ends in and of themselves) and Autonomous, (the primary method for eliciting cooperation is stating that we as a society have a moral responsibility to one another, convincing, not compelling).

I have often heard that when circumstances are at their most dire (such as in warfare of triage medicine), we turn to Utilitarian ethics. I am aware that in areas with severe outbreaks, considerations about who has the greatest expectation of recovery are factors in deciding who can receive medical treatment. However, I feel the broader response has been far more humane, namely, how can we save the most lives, no matter who they are or what their circumstances.

I'm curious to hear any thoughts or criticisms along these lines. Thanks, stay safe!