CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It talks about an increase of 9 people, and I think it is safe to assume that some of those are deaths that likely would have happened later in the year even with no shutdown. We would have to wait for yearly numbers to have better information. It certainly doesn't compare with the number of people dying from COVID.
I think you are correct that we have incomplete information right now, and even down the road it would be difficult to establish causation (it's almost always down to strength of correlation on stuff like this).
That being said, though, it seems like a reasonable conclusion to suppose that the shutdown will lead to increased domestic violence (fatal or otherwise). The shutdown means that: (a) abusive people are likely to be placed under more stress, which they are already prone to expressing through violence towards others; (b) abusive people and the family they abuse are spending considerably more time together than they otherwise would; and (c) people who are being abused are more vulnerable in that they have fewer places they can go and even less means to do so.
I don't think this alone is a reason to lift the shutdown or relax restrictions. However, I think this issue taken in conjunction with others does raise a substantive challenge to sustaining the shutdown. The costs to lifting the shutdown are obvious, highly publicized, and easy to articulate. By contrast, the costs to sustaining it are less obvious, not generally publicized, and more difficult to articulate. That does not mean that costs of sustaining the shutdown do not outweigh the costs of lifting it.
While it is true that some mortality factors will increase - it is also true that others will decrease.
How many deaths will be avoided due to work-related stress, workplace accidents, vehicle accidents during commute, etc.? e.g.
On balance, it seems pretty clear that overall deaths will be reduced by sustaining - though your other posts are right to point out that deaths are not the only factor to consider - economy, quality of life, etc.
Nicely put. Your observation about other diminished mortality factors is particularly well taken.
Although I agree that overall deaths will be lower by sustaining, I do not think that that is an obvious mark in favor of sustaining. This is because the deaths in question are not interchangeable; that is, different lives are lost or spared depending upon which course is pursued.
To invoke overall mortality in favor of sustaining is to invoke a utilitarian calculus, a framework which I am not at all sympathetic towards. Although it seems quite reasonable to claim that governments have a positive duty to act in order to save lives, the matter is considerably more complicated once we accept that such action also comes at the expense of lives which otherwise would not have been lost (in addition to the expense to well-being).
Generally speaking, and in medical contexts especially, we do not expect or compel others to sacrifice their lives (nor even their well-being) in order to save others. For instance, we do not compel healthy people to donate blood, much less organs or their lives, in order to save others (even many others). Nor do we generally require people to intervene to save the lives of others, particularly were doing so comes at any risk to their well-being or lives.
That we should do so now is therefore striking to me, because the logic underpinning shutdown is the same as in the preceding cases.
The government certainly does do things which can reduce overall quality of life for some in order to benefit or save the lives of others - tax policies, safety regulations, etc. - these might lead to increased workplace stress, drive companies to automate thereby reducing the workforce, etc.
More importantly, if we open up before hospitals have sufficient capacity, then we are increasing deaths of healthcare workers which 'otherwise would not have been lost'. That's why I think that is an appropriate fulcrum. Informed people can largely fend for themselves in the public space, but we need available testing so that everyone is making informed decisions, and we need capacity (PPE, etc.) to protect those with a duty of care.
While I agree that government does do things at cost to some and for the benefit of others, I think that these practices are still an exception to the rule (especially in medical contexts). People are not generally compelled to sacrifice their well-being (and certainly not their lives) to benefit or save the lives of others.
I think that the burden of proof falls upon those who want to compel that sacrifice, and I expect most claims to fail the burden of proof; this is especially the case when such claims hinge primarily or exclusively upon a utilitarian calculus (e.g. the shutdown).
Lifting the shutdown does not cause deaths which otherwise would not have been lost because the original condition was the absence of a shutdown. They are among the lives which would have been lost if no action were taken by the government. Loss of life due to inaction or negligence (not shutting down) is substantively different from loss of life due to action (shutting down). We consistently recognize action as more blameworthy than inaction or negligence; it is not obvious to me why this case should be an exception.
Lifting the shutdown does not cause deaths which otherwise would not have been lost because the original condition was the absence of a shutdown.
You honestly write the most ridiculous stuff imaginable. There IS a shutdown, so if you end it prematurely then obviously you are going to lose lives which would not have ordinarily been lost.
You honestly write the most ridiculous stuff imaginable.
Oh, I can think of at least one contender for that honour.
There IS a shutdown, so if you end it prematurely then obviously you are going to lose lives which would not have ordinarily been lost.
The existing shutdown represents an action taken by the government. Sustaining it is also an action taken by the government. This action causes hardship and deaths which otherwise could not occur. By contrast, not continuing the shutdown is an inaction (i.e. it is not acting to shut things down, but reverts things to how they would be without government action).
Although deaths will occur in the absence of a shutdown which would not occur in the presence of a shutdown, this does not mean that those deaths are caused by the absence of the shutdown. These deaths are caused by COVID-19 (and individuals with a weak sense of voluntary mutualism who act to endanger others, sovcits among them).
"these practices are still an exception to the rule"
It would depend on how indirectly we measure. If raising taxes would decrease well-being or even produce stress or depression which increases some deaths, can the government no longer raise taxes?
"People are not generally compelled to sacrifice"
Another example would be the military draft - where people are compelled to risk their lives for the benefit of others.
"hinge primarily or exclusively upon a utilitarian calculus"
I do think officials at the local, state, and federal level are considering more than just deaths for one course vs the other, though factors like well-being are, by nature, less quantifiable.
"due to inaction"
Once the train is on a new set of tracks, does pulling the lever to revert to prior tracks (esp. based on new information) count as action or inaction? Our trolley problem is going off the rails... ;)
Also, if we reopen gradually, that would be a different course than immediate reversion to some "original condition", and thereby is still an action.
It would depend on how indirectly we measure. If raising taxes would decrease well-being or even produce stress or depression which increases some deaths, can the government no longer raise taxes? Another example would be the military draft - where people are compelled to risk their lives for the benefit of others.
Whether the government raises taxes or conscripts its citizens is somewhat beside my point. I am not claiming that the government never compels anyone to risk their lives for others. I am contesting that this is (or should be) the general or default practice. I don't think we're likely to get far on that question by parrying back and forth with one-off examples. The more interesting question is probably whether and when this should be done, rather than whether and when it is done.
I do think officials at the local, state, and federal level are considering more than just deaths for one course vs the other, though factors like well-being are, by nature, less quantifiable.
I do not think I suggested otherwise. Regardless, this is not inconsistent with my claim that a utilitarian calculus is being applied (whatever factors people may be considering).
Once the train is on a new set of tracks, does pulling the lever to revert to prior tracks (esp. based on new information) count as action or inaction? Our trolley problem is going off the rails... ;)
Quite off the rails (lol). To cease to act is to no longer act, and is therefore not an action but an inaction. The more accurate trolley dilemma would be that after first pulling the lever one must continue to hold it, or the trolley will divert back to the original tracks. There is no second pulling of a lever because ceasing to act is not an action.
Also, if we reopen gradually, that would be a different course than immediate reversion to some "original condition", and thereby is still an action.
Again, I think this incorrectly attributes action to inaction. To 'reopen gradually' is a misnomer which implies that states of openness are constituted by action. However, to be 'open' is simply to be free of restriction, which entails an absence of government action. When we discuss 'reopening gradually' it is therefore incorrect to think that we are discussing a series of opening actions. Rather, it is the case that we are discussing a series of shutdown actions which are increasingly less authoritarian than the preceding shutdown actions (until a condition of inaction is reached).
Right, we seem to agree that the government can act and does, and apparently even that sometimes it should - though for what reasons it should act remains nebulous.
Unless you have some set of deontological maxims the government should follow (or want to flesh out same), I think we can just agree that it is subject to broad differences of opinion. There are some imperatives that would possibly leave us in the same condition we currently find ourselves - defending the population from outside harms, protecting the economy (if they thought even greater economic collapse would occur without a shutdown), etc.
I do think this is an underappreciated responsibility of legislators (not that they all do it well...) A regular person has the luxury of saying that every life is "priceless", etc., but, in practice, a representative either takes some percentage of my tax dollars to help someone else, go to war, etc., or they don't.
We do seem to differ on the form of the trolley problem. I think it is purposefully transitory - the decision is whether to let the current state of affairs to continue (inaction) or make some change (action). Once the decision is made, you are in a new state. Therefore making things more similar to the previous path requires change/action, whereas letting the new state continue unabated would be inaction.
Ultimately, it is largely moot. We are still faced with the same choices on when/how to open things up to be more normal.
One tangential case to consider would be abortion - there are some who think the woman should be compelled to sacrifice her well-being in order to preserve the life of the child.
The anti-abortionist argument is a triumph of sexism more than it is a testament to utilitarianism. The argument gets off the ground by diminishing the value of female bodily autonomy, such that it will lose in most utilitarian evaluations that do not directly affect males.
Notably, once a child is born the law no longer compels parents to sacrifice their bodily autonomy in order to preserve the life of their child (e.g. they do not have to donate blood or organs). Nor do anti-abortionists argue that it should. This is because the compulsion is no longer constrained to females but also extends to males whose bodily autonomy is believed to have more value.
Do you honestly have any idea of how ridiculous you sound? You are not writing an academic paper. There is no reason whatsoever to use the word "tangential" other than to try to make yourself feel superior by using pompous language.
You can't see the wood for the trees. Making it so obvious that you have an online thesaurus open and are looking for elaborate synonyms is not the way to convince any intelligent person that you are intelligent.
Jace and I were discussing the shutdown orders so abortion wasn't directly related, but it is sometimes discussed using the rubric of pitting the life/well-being of one person against that of another - so it is tangentially related.
I'm sure Jace knows what tangential means - if you don't, you are free to not respond, or to look it up...
While you demand the shutdown 3 times as many women are now being killed by men
That isn't what the story says you infantile, lying child. The story says domestic violence is up by three times. It does not say that three times as many women are being killed or that all of the victims are women.
Bronto, I have never, in all of my life, ever encountered such a thorough waste of energy.
That they wouldn't be in lockdown with unstable men to be murdered in the first place.
Lol. Right Bronto. And they wouldn't have been murdered if there was no taco bar for them to meet in and fall in love. So let's blame taco bars while we are at it, you pathetic Nazi rodent.
The existence of a taco bar does not predictably lead to or exacerbate domestic violence. The shutdown does, because it directly increases the psychological stress on abusive people and the time they spend at home while directly decreasing the (already limited) options abused people have of leaving the situation.
I am not 'moaning' about domestic violence. Neither am I arguing that this is a reason to lift the shutdown. But please, by all means, do continue parading your little strawmen about. I would hate to deprive you of your one trick pony. What else would you ride about on? Plainly, not reason.
You've written 10,000 words of sheer gibberish about it. Are you delusional or something? Stop contradicting yourself and find better arguments.
Certainly, I'm discussing domestic violence. But it's inaccurate to suggest I'm 'moaning' about it. If anyone is coming across as mewling, it's you.
You could have fooled me mate.
I expect that isn't hard to do. I've never made that argument, at any rate.
I haven't used any straw men. You are just a demented nutbag who writes things and then denies writing them ten minutes later.
You have done so repeatedly and continue to do so. As I said before, though, I won't take that away from you. I don't believe in robbing the cognitively poor.
Social isolation is a known risk variable for suicide, particularly for people with certain pre-existing mental health conditions. You insensitive prick.
Hello J:
Holy moly batman, did we discover some hypocrisy???
We DID. How can someone badmouth others for using ad hominems when they THEMSELVES do it??? That's fucked up, isn't it?
Fucked up would be continuing to extend civility to someone who obviously can't be arsed to reciprocate. If you can't eat what you serve, then I recommend you not dish it out in the first place.
Ah I see, so it's their fault they were murdered. Blast those cunning women. Forcing those men to murder them like that in the midst of a terrible pandemic.
Acknowleding that the shutdown contributes to domestic violence does not absolve abusive people of guilt. Such an awareness is in fact integral to identifying the problem and addressing it as a public health concern in its own right.
Acknowleding that the shutdown contributes to domestic violence
You're an idiot. Shutting the shops doesn't make you beat your family. You can't blame external circumstances for your own decision to be violent. That's absolutely ridiculous. If we could do that then nobody would ever go to prison.
I never said that closing shops causes people to beat their families. I said that forced isolation contributes to increased rates of domestic violence. I'm not surprised that you fail to grasp the distinction between the two.
Again, the shutdown directly contributes to increased domestic violence because: (a) it is a source of stress on abusive people who by their nature express their stress through violence towards others; (b) it puts abusers and the abused in more regular contact because they are spending more time at home as they are not at work or anywhere else; and (c) it removes avenues of escape for the abused because many places they might go are closed.
None of this diminishes the personal responsibility of abusive people, legally or ethically. They did not choose to be under more stress or to have to spend more time at home, but they do choose to act violently under those conditions. (Not that free will is requisite for legal accountability anyways, but you're having a hard enough time following along without getting into meta-ethics and jurisprudence.)
What I have said consistently is that the shutdown leads to increased domestic violence. This is a claim about how context conditions and enables human behavior. It is like saying that the availability of medical equipment leads to fewer deaths from COVID-19.
What you erroneously keep claiming I've said is that the shutdown causes people to beat their families. This is a claim about why people act the way they do. It like saying that the availability of medical equipment causes doctors to provide care to COVID-19 patients.
The shutdown exacerbates domestic violence because it creates conditions under which already abusive people have more opportunities and (to them) reasons to abuse other people who have fewer opportunities to escape that violence. This is like pointing out that introducing a gun into such a household would be bad. It's pretty obvious, and in no way diminishes the culpability of the abuser.
I'm not sure which is going to run out first: the number of ways I can explain this basic distinction to you, or my patience for doing so.
The problem isn't the shutdown. If violence is in the heart of the person then it's just a convenient excuse. If you are getting sick of the person you are stuck at home with there are alternatives in leaving as opposed to beating and killing.
The shutdown is a part of the problem insofar as it creates conditions under which already abusive people have more opportunities and (to them) reasons to abuse other people who have fewer opportunities to escape that violence.
None of that diminishes the personal responsibility of abusive people, legally or ethically. But it does mean that the shutdown creates a context in which domestic abuse is more frequent than it would have been without the shutdown.