How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD! - Part 2 (Wherein Tradical Apologizes to Murrax for misunderstanding)
+
JMJ
I have to apologise to Murrax for my earlier replies to his comments in the 'How many more must die ...' post. I misunderstood his question and will now try to answer his question(s), but of course I am fallible and may misunderstand again.
I have just posted some preparatory work (link) that will inform my responses to Murra.
My general thoughts, not specific to Murrax's questions but on the situation as a whole:
<Rant>
Based on the reactions that I have seen in the media, I get the impression that North Americans have had it so soft, for so long (myself included), that they take are making a mountain out of a mole hill (myself not included).
There are
far worse pathogens in the world and we have gotten off lucky that
SARS-COV2 is dangerous enough to get people serious about preparing for a
pandemic. The SARS-COV outbreak was more dangerous and more contagious, yet it was a
'blip' as far as people were concerned. That was a warning that everyone seems to have ignored.
I hope that the authorities take this new warning seriously and that the general population learns to understand what is a necessary during these times. A hundred years ago millions died from the "Spanish Flu" and it targeted the young. There's nothing preventing SARS-COV2 from "learning" the same lesson.
</Rant>
P^3
Come on Tradical, you're misrepresenting my position. I didn't just say "scale does matter" I said "Scale does matter *in determining the common good*" which it obviously does. It seems you think that if 1 person dies it is a threat to the common good? Again, I'm not speaking about an individual action where an individual endangers another, I am speaking about a government enforcing that people wear something in order to protect the common good. But I want to talk about that too. So a few things here.Tradical: I think I understand the question. I would paraphrase it as: Does a civil leader's sphere of authority apply to the case where they know that one person would die.
Assuming that only one person would die, then it would not fall under common-good. As he has fore-knowledge that one person would die, he would be obligated to give orders to safeguard that person's safety. If not he would have committed a sin of omission and dereliction of duty to both that person and to common-good in respects to persons.
1. I wish you would answer my question. If everyone wearing masks would prevent the spread of COVID 19 to one person, would the government be permitted to do this?The absurdities are guarded by the sphere of the authority.
The problem with your application of true Catholic principles are that I don't see an end to potential absurdities. So my next question is.
2. If the government supplied everyone with a Hazmat suit and enforced people to wear it when in public, knowing that it would slow the spread, could the government do this? With your position this I think you have to say the government is justified in doing this. If you don't think that the government is justified in doing this, why not?An interesting question. Yes, a government could do this as you have switched from a single case to a general case to prevent the spread of disease. Whether it should issue such a command is a matter of prudence. My friend, who works as an ICU nurse,wheres a fully isolated suit - beyond what most people think of as a hazmat suit. In reality, it is a bio-safety suit.
If the Premier (head of province), issued and order to wear bio-safety suits, I would be concerned that they have specialized information to warrant such an action, and take appropriate action.
And finally...
Further, it must be asked why wouldn't you wear a hazmat suit yourself if you were given it? The masks may help, but they are not absolute. Fauci just said people should wear two masks. You know what is absolute? A hazmat suit. So....THE point is that masks do help.
3. Why shouldn't the individual feel morally obliged to wear the hazmat suit if he is also morally obliged to wear a mask?I'm not certain where you are going with this ... the moral obligation in question is derived from the order being given by those in positions of authority.
And finally...
4. I would also ask you, since it is possible to spread the flu to an elderly individual and you might not know if you have the flu, why shouldn't you feel obliged to always wear a mask even when we aren't in a pandemic?Well, this is a classic risk management question of likelihood and impact.
Likelihood: First, we are talking about seasonal influenza which has fairly distinct seasons. If the visit is out-of-season and I was not aware of being in contact with anyone who was ill, then the likelihood is low. If the visit was in the midst of flu season, I would be aware of my own health and contacts and gauge the likelihood of being contagious. In addition, the elderly that I visit have normally received the seasonal flu vaccine. Finally, the care homes that I visit lock-down when there is a regional outbreak, so I am also made aware of when the likelihood of contagion is higher.
Impact: Seasonal influenza has a much lower infection fatality rate (IFR). Provided the person that I was going to visit was not at high-risk, and the IFR/CFR of that season's influenza was low, then the impact would be small.
Therefore, when the likelihood and impact are both low, in the cases listed above, I would not make use of PPE. If there was a chance that I was contagious, then I would simply not go.
These aren't extreme questions, they are simply applying your principles in the way you are applying them. If you could show me why under your principles wearing a mask is only a temporary solution to this crisis and why someone wouldn't be forced to wear other PPE in public or more and more masks, I would hear you out. But that isn't the full issue either. I don't think it is acceptable to mandate these things in Church, the idea of a priest wearing a mask on the altar is absurd and crazy and if it is true that the government can't, I don't see why they could mandate this in public? I also see a big problem with children not being able to look at faces, kids with asthma not being able to breath and the general social isolation that this causes. But let's just stick with the questions that I asked.
These principles are not 'my' principles, they are simply Catholic principles. I don't know where you live, but the provincial health orders that I have read do not require someone who is officiating to wear a mask. There are other conditions, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
I get your concerns about the elderly. My generation has this kind of attitude because they feel like none of their problems are taken seriously by "boomers" and are are often neglected or made worse. But this has resulted in them losing the virtue of charity. My instinct naturally goes to concern for children who I think have been permanently damaged by these restrictions. Why not a compromise and simply say that the elderly should wear masks and you should wear masks around them until they get the vaccine? (Which I believe you can take.)
It is a nice thought that kids shouldn't wear masks etc. The orders that I have read exclude those under 5 and a variety of other people. So they aren't unreasonable from where I am sitting.
1/2 Hey Tradical, I really thank you for taking my responses with sincerity, charity and respect. I think your blog is truly a hidden gem because it takes a lot of information and distills it into nice maps that are easy to memorize and understand. Your post on Obedience to Civil Authority is fantastic, and I agree with your main premise, but somehow I don't see it applying as easily as you do. I'm glad in this post you distinguish that the moral obligation comes from one of obeying civil authority, rather than some sort of intrinsic obligation that comes with wearing a mask. I think in regards to the mask issue, some things still need to be defined, and once that is hammered out I think we would be on the same page. I would ask what is a "public" place? My state defines this as everywhere that is not your house and that this law is in place whenever you encounter someone within 6 feet, a few places are exempted. Nobody does this as it is against human nature. You can't live a normal life like this, maybe if one spends most of his time on Twitter he can, but man is social by nature and this eliminates his social element. If you are to have any social interaction inside a building that isn't your home with people who aren't at risk of getting seriously ill you have to wear a mask and stay six feet apart? I just can't imagine obeying that, I think most people who are alone with their friends will just take off the mask and be like normal human beings, not mannequins standing 6 feet apart. The idea that everyone who acts like a normal human being is sinning seems absurd. I have not seen solid proof why a universal mask mandate like this is within the state's sphere of authority. And now you are telling me that if the state tells me to wear a full hazmat or bio suit in order to slow the spread I will commit a sin if I don't do that as well and at the same time you tell me that potential absurdities are protected by the sphere of authority? Well I think having the entire population wear a bio-safety suit whenever they aren't in a place that isn't there house is pretty absurd. This sphere of authority is obviously the key aspect here and the application of it needs to be figured out.
ReplyDeleteI think we are operating with the same principles but applying them differently. It does come down to the question that I asked that you addressed but didn't get to the root of my point. I will try to make it very clear this time.
*If a large State (Like the United States) issued a nationwide mask mandate after receiving information that if they didn't issue this mandate that 1 individual would die, does every individual have a moral obligation to follow this mandate?*
If you say yes, this opens up a huge can of worms because you are basically saying that we should have been wearing these masks since the beginning of time since it is possible for you to spread diseases even when we aren't in a pandemic.
I think I answered this in the other post.
DeleteBecause it deals with one person as opposed to the population in general, it would be out of the sphere of authority to make such an order.
However, if the person in authority knew who would die, they would personally have an obligation to take actions to preserve that life. Otherwise they would commit a sin of omission and any applicable civil law.
P^3
2/2 If you should say no, I imagine it will be because you would say it is outside the state's sphere of authority but why? I will throw it back at you "How many more must die for the throne" how many people must die to make this mandate legitimate? In my state where there are a high number of cases, but where the virus has a 1.7% lethality rate, is that enough? What if we split that in half, is that enough? How little of a lethality rate must we get to get to the point of saying "Oh this isn't in the state's sphere of authority." I don't think there is actually a number. I think I will be told that because the vaccine is only 95% effective there is still a chance I will spread COVID so I better put the mask on around my friends, they are already saying this. And I'm supposed to believe that disobeying this is sinful?
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet that your law is phrased in the same way that my law is. It is probably something like "A public place is anywhere outside of your home where a person is present within 6 feet" And guess who applies under that law? The priest celebrating mass with a server. That's the case here in my state, but it's not enforced. Nor is it being enforced anywhere.
I struggle to disagree with you because you have been extremely helpful to me in my studies with this blog. But I just don’t see how you can prove that this application is within the state’s sphere of authority without going into absurdities like saying a 6 year old needs to get on that hazmat suit or saying that double masking is simply what we should always do. Sorry for distracting you from your spiritual reading, keep up the good work.
I think the simplest way to split this Gordian knot is to look at the nature of the threat.
DeleteIn this case it is a generalized threat from a pathogen that can cause illness in a large enough people to impact society as a whole.
P^3
I just don't think that answer justifies your position that it is a sin to disobey an authority here. I think the sphere of authority could only be justified in forcing someone to wear a mask in a specific instance where you encounter a particularly endangered person, like an elderly person during time of pandemic. I don't think it can be proven that a universal mask mandate binds the person on the pain of sin to obey. As I've been thinking about it, it seems to violate the principle of subsidiarity especially and seems outside of the State's sphere of authority. And when there is a serious doubt about the validity of the law, it does not bind.
DeleteTo conclude, how about we agree to the statement that we should take obeying the authorities more seriously and actually weigh these things with Catholic principles rather than basing our opinions based on conspiracy theories and emotions?
Tradical,
ReplyDeleteThe dispute between you and Murrax lies in the fact that your Decision Tree leaves out an ESSENTIAL element of St. Thomas' doctrine on true obedience.
He defines Human Positive Law as "an ordinance of reason, for the common good, promulgated by a legitimate authority". (I-II Q.90, a4)
You have completely left out the REASON part.
St. Thomas very clearly teaches that, if an authority, even legitimate, gives an order that is obviously irrational, it is NOT A REAL LAW, and need not be obeyed. This is firstly because irrationality itself takes a command outside of the definition of law, and secondly because obeying irrational commands is usually harmful to the common good. One CAN obey it, but only if doing so is not sinful in itself, and if obeying it will not cause harm.
In the case of mask mandates, these are VERY clearly and totally irrational. ALL studies prior to 2020 -- and there have been many -- have shown that masks do not reduce the spread of viral diseases. These studies were truly scientific, random controlled tests, and could not possibly have been generated by a COVID agenda bias, since COVID did not yet even exist. (Do a net search on Denis Rancourt). Post COVID "science" has been agenda-driven. The idea that ALL past science can be overturned in a matter of months by a few new "studies" is comical, and overturns the whole idea of science.
Secondly, even if masks did work, they are still not necessary.
As of Dec. 27, 2020, the total world population mortality rate for COVID was 0.023%. This number is taken from the *official* world deaths number as of that date (ca. 2.5 mil), divided by world population of 7.8 bil.
As we all know, the official death stats are greatly inflated because of improper testing and reporting protocols, so the actual mortality rate is much lower. But even using the official stats, and taking the 0.023% number, we find that COVID is 39 times less deadly than the Asian flu of 1957 (TPM of 0.8%) and 32 times less than the 1968 Hong Kong flu (TPM 0.76%). It is 105 times less deadly than the 1918 Spanish flu. (See the wiki article Influenza History).
BTW, the 0.023% figure for COVID is almost exactly the Total Population Mortality that you get if you average the TPM of the Diamond Princess and Grand Princess cruise ships. Thus we could have reliably predicted the true world threat of COVID way back in March, 2020. All we needed was some expert who was a real expert, who would think of the obvious fact that the cruise ships were perfect little test stations for measuring that threat.
Of course, the so-called experts didn't even have two brain cells to rub together so as to produce the small spark of intelligence needed to do these obvious calculations.
The lockdowns, social distancing, masks, etc. have done and are doing huge harm to the world. The cure is truly worse than the disease, and that is indisputable scientific fact. Our problem is that so few know the facts I've stated above.
As for "vaccines", don't even get me started. All I need to say is that, if ZERO mitigation measures are justified by reason (as is plainly the case since NONE were used during the Asian and Hong Kong flus), then vaccines aren't either.
Objectively, compliance with these completely irrational "laws" is therefore abetting and condoning the harm done by them. It is also participation in a vast and grievous lie. It is a double sin, and therefore we MUST disobey.