Michael J. Sandel he is a celebrity, but not like the virologists who attend the talk shows on television every night. Her lessons on YouTube are followed by millions of people, especially in China. Even the Chinese president Xi seeks answers to his immense dilemmas in Sandel's propositions (such as: is it right that a banker is better paid than an infirmary", or "is it right to cheat to get rich?").
Sandel teaches moral philosophy at Harvard and its obsessively monothematic courses bear the denomination “Justice”. In fact, justice is the heart of his thought system. Sandel is generally associated with a philosophical school known as communitarianism, which has its roots in the utopianism of Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella and in the social experiments of Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and others utopian socialists. But he has nothing to do with communism, even if Marx contributes to the definition of the system of thought of this school.
But Sandel is sui generis also for other aspects of his work. He is a maieutic. Because of this young people love it. One of his classes was attended by 1.200 students, the all-time attendance record for Harvard University. It is said that 15 young people sat on the benches of the amphitheater classroom to listen to Sandel's lectures. And then it is said that philosophy is boring in the time of distraction. Well, ask Sandel's pupils!
His Socratic method, direct and paradoxical, in discussing the great themes of existence, has become legendary. His most important books — Liberalism and the limits of justice (1994) Justice: our common good (2010) and What money can't buy. The moral limits of the market (2013) – are translated into Italian and published by Feltrinelli. Sandel also does a lot of self-publishing and is comfortable with new media.
Recently Thomas Friedmann, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist New York Times, interviewed him about the pandemic.
We are pleased to offer you below the Italian translation of the interview entitled "Finding the 'Common Good' in a Pandemic".
What do you mean by "common good"?
«The common good is a principle that affects how we live together in a community. It's about the ethical goals we strive for, the benefits and burdens we share, the sacrifices we make for each other. It is about teaching each other how to lead a good and dignified life. This is a far cry from what is politics these days. But the common good, like all ethical ideals, is the subject of great discussions. The debate is always open and there is disagreement».
Well, if we are discussing what the common good could be, how would you describe the positions on the field on the pandemic?
«Let's think of the two symbolic watchwords of the pandemic: "social distancing" and "we are all in it together". In normal times, these slogans would identify conflicting ethical principles – we have to distance ourselves but we also have to stay together. To respond to the pandemic, we actually need both. We have to physically separate ourselves from our friends and co-workers in order to protect the whole community, to prevent the virus from spreading.
Ethically, however, these watchwords highlight two different approaches to the common good: going alone, with everyone defending themselves individually, or being together, seeking solidarity. In a highly individualistic society like ours, there is not much solidarity, except in times of crisis, such as in times of war. Our lack of pandemic preparedness reveals a lack of solidarity in our social and political life, especially in our inadequate [US] public health system and lack of a universal national health system and social safety nets. This makes the sudden and ritual appeal to the principle "we're all in this together" void».
There have been many discussions, especially in Great Britain, on the question of "herd immunity", i.e. letting the virus spread rapidly, to treat only the most seriously ill. Within a period of weeks, however, proponents of this thesis say, a critical mass of people will become immune, forcing the virus to become extinct because it will no longer have any organisms to infect. How do you see the ethical choices around herd immunity?
«The strategy of dealing with the pandemic by allowing the virus to run its course as quickly as possible in hopes of accelerating "herd immunity" is a ruthless approach reminiscent of social Darwinism — the idea of survival of the fittest . It allows the contagion to collapse the intensive care units of hospitals and take away the most vulnerable. The goal of this thesis is to restart the economy as soon as possible. Which is also an important goal.
I predict we will soon have many cost-benefit analyzes showing that the cash value of a life saved with social distancing is too high to support the restrictions on the economy. This purely utilitarian approach is far from the ideal of solidarity, which requires showing as much care and concern for the weak and vulnerable as for the strong and important. But I think the decision-making public health experts have a different, less dire scenario in mind."
Yes, those I've written about or I'm following are actually proposing a three-step strategy: 1) Practice social distancing and shutting down activities for at least two weeks so that anyone who has contracted the disease can experience symptoms at that time. period. Those who can recover at home will be cared for in their homes and separated from healthy partners and cohabitants, and those who need hospitalization will go to hospital. 2) In addition to this, there will be many more tests, to understand which regions and age groups - how many young people, how many forty-year-olds, etc. — are more affected. 3) Once we have enough information, healthy and immune workers will return to the workplace, or school, the elderly or positives will be confined until "all is well".
It seems to me that this approach is based on the principle of the common good. It is an approach that takes into account that "work" and the economy are also a matter of public health. If there are millions of people who have lost the business built over a lifetime of work or the savings they have accrued in existence, we will have an epidemic of suicide, despair and opioid addiction that will dwarf the losses due to Covid-19 . President Trump said that he "would like the country to restart, and he can't wait to go somewhere, for Easter". I appreciate the president's desire to get as many people back to work as possible. I would like it too, but to get there we need a national plan of this type - in three phases - with real health metrics defined by experts and confirmed by data.
“If Trump, to avert the economic crisis, declares victory over the virus and sends people back to work prematurely, then he will effectively implement the social Darwinist scenario. But it's simply irresponsible to let the most vulnerable die, so the rest of us can contribute to the economy and stock market recovery. The more humane scenario of the public health experts you mentioned is obviously preferable.
But it assumes exactly what our society is sadly lacking: an adequate way to test all people and pinpoint those most at risk. Apparently South Korea has done far more mass testing and been able to handle the pandemic more successfully than we and the Europeans have — and thus been able to gradually put its people back to work . But that brings us back to our lack of public health preparedness."
That's exactly the point. Must we make a Faustian trade-off between medical health and economic health?
“No, not necessarily. It all depends on whether we can begin to reorganize the economy in a way that promotes the common good. It is clear that this requires an economy that guarantees access to health care for all, social safety nets for all workers and economic support for those who lose their jobs, whether due to a pandemic or due to technology or other circumstances beyond their control. Here's an idea: Why don't we consider, as a condition of getting people back to work, the extension of health and economic protections to everyone for the next 18 months? Perhaps this gesture of solidarity will work socially and could become a measure worth maintaining even when the virus goes away as it came.
