Philosopher’s moral theories and the Covid-19 Pandemic

Kant’s Moral Theory:

Kant’s fundamental moral principle is known as the Categorical Imperative. An imperative is nothing more than a command. In contrast to a hypothetical imperative, the concept of a categorical imperative can be understood. A hypothetical imperative instructs you on what to do in order to achieve a specific goal. A categorical imperative is distinguished by the fact that it instructs you on how to act regardless of what end or goal you may have in mind. Taking morality’s fundamental principle to be a categorical imperative implies that moral reasons take precedence over other kinds of reasons.

There are two formulations of Kant’s Categorical Imperative; Individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, according to the formulation (CIa). That is to say, people should be treated as beings with intrinsic value. To say that people have intrinsic value is to say that they have worth apart from their utility for this or that purpose. (CIa) does not state that we can never use a person for our own gain. However, it warns us not to use people merely as a means to an end.

Let us now look at the second formulation. (CIb) instructs us to only act on “maxims” that are universalizable. A maxim is defined here as a generalized motivation or intention to act in a certain way under a specific set of circumstances. Utilitarian moral theory evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action solely on the basis of its consequences. Consequentialist theories are those that hold that the morality of an action or rule for acting is determined by its consequences. Kant’s respect for persons viewpoint, on the other hand, is a deontological theory, which takes the moral state of actions to depend in part factors other than consequences.  In Kant’s respect for persons theory, the moral status of an action depends in part on the motivation for acting.

Would Kant agree whether masks should be worn during the Covid 19 pandemic?

The coronavirus pandemic has taken everyone by surprise, not just the health-care system. It has given moral consciences a boost. Things that we previously tolerated as a society, such as low pay for essential workers and income barriers to hospital treatment, now appear abhorrent. The crisis implies that we are, at heart, Kantians, given that the only legitimate political philosophy at the moment is one of equality. This is reasonable egalitarianism, and it has never been more relevant in my opinion. Covid-19 affects both prime ministers and paupers and is unconcerned about our special interests. Because of the precariousness of some, we are all vulnerable. So yes, thinking like Kant there is only one egalitarian moral rule to follow, wearing a mask to minimize the risk of transmission of the virus to more vulnerable individuals than ourselves

Descartes’ Moral Theory:

The “provisional moral code” is the most well-known expression of Descartes’ ethical views. Descartes frames his provisional morality rules as part of the epistemological project, his quest for certainty. Descartes proposes a provisional moral code consisting of just four principles in order to act decisively and live as happily as possible while avoiding precipitate conclusions and assumptions. The first principle was to obey one’s country’s laws and customs while adhering to the religion in which they had been raised by God’s grace. The second maxim was to be as firm and decisive in our actions as we could, and to adhere to even the shakiest opinions with the same zeal as if they were certain. His third maxim was to always strive to master oneself rather than fortune, and to alter one’s desires rather than the world’s order. Finally, to conclude this moral code, he believed that one could do no better than to continue with their [occupation] and devote their entire life to cultivating their own reason and advancing as far as they could in the knowledge of the truth, using the method they had prescribed for themselves.

Would Descartes agree whether masks should be worn during the Covid 19 pandemic?

Since Descartes is pretty adamant about following one’s country’s own law and adhering to the world order, regardless of personal comfort, biases or opinions and forming moral judgements according to the world order and not our own personal desires, He would whole heartedly agree with the statement of wearing masks during the Covid-19 pandemic especially if that statement was state sanctioned.

Sartre’s Moral Theory:

Sartre’s early career was dominated by his belief in the sanctity of every individual consciousness, a consciousness that arises from each person’s subjective and individual experience of the world. Sartre became more intimately involved in the concrete political issues of his day as he became more involved in the various larger social structures that systematically objectify people and fail to recognize or affirm their individual consciousness and innate freedom.

Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, as well as the responsibility that people have for all aspects of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions as free beings. That is, complete freedom entails complete responsibility. He believed that even those who choose not to be responsible, who declare themselves to be irresponsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that occurs as a result of their inaction.

According to Sartre’s moral philosophy, ethics is primarily a matter of individual conscience. Sartre’s writings about oppressive societal structures and the ways in which individuals should ideally interact with each other to affirm their respective humanities reveal much about his own ethics, but he rejects any version of universal ethics. He is clear in his belief that morals are always first and foremost a matter of subjective, individual conscience.

Would Sartre agree whether masks should be worn during the Covid 19 pandemic?

Since Sartre so clearly believes morals are above all subjective to one’s individual judgement and he doesn’t agree to adhere to the universal law of ethics his stance is clear, those individuals who believe wearing a mask infringes on their individual freedom are justifiably allowed to refuse to wear a mask. They aren’t obliged to follow a law that is universally ethical since it isn’t personally ethical to them. Especially since the mandate of wearing a mask is state sanctioned, Descartes would consider this a large social structure that has systematically objectified people and failed to recognize or affirm their individual consciousness and innate freedom.

De Beauvoir’s Moral Theory:

Simone de Beauvoir is best known as a novelist, feminist thinker, and writer, but she was also an existentialist philosopher in her own right, and, like her lover Sartre, she thought a lot about the human struggle to be free. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, she developed an existentialist ethics that condemned the “spirit of seriousness,” in which people identify too readily with certain abstractions at the expense of individual freedom and responsibility.

In many ways, The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947) expands on themes introduced in Pyrrhus et Cinéas. Beauvoir, in particular, expounds on the idea that human freedom requires the freedom of others in order to be realized. She begins this work by stating the tragic state of the human situation, in which freedom is experienced as a spontaneous internal drive that is crushed by the external weight of the world. She contends that human existence is always an ambiguous admixture of internal freedom to transcend the given conditions of the world and the weight of the world that imposes itself on us in a way that is outside of our control and not of our own choosing.

In Sartrean terms, she creates a problem in which each existent wishes to deny their paradoxical essence as nothingness by wishing to be in the strict, objective sense; a project doomed to failure and bad faith. This necessitates the use of our freedom in projects that arise from a spontaneous choice. Furthermore, the ends and goals of our actions must never be established as absolutes apart from the people who choose them. Beauvoir, in this sense, limits freedom. Being free does not imply having unrestricted licence to do whatever one wants. To be free, on the other hand, entails the conscious assumption of this freedom through projects chosen at each moment. Beauvoir also emphasises that, while existentialist ethics upholds the sanctity of individuals, an individual is always situated within a community, and as such, separate existents are inextricably linked to one another. She contends that every enterprise takes place in a world populated by and thus affecting other humans.

Would De Beauvoir agree whether masks should be worn during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Since Beauvoir limits individual freedom and emphasizes on the fact that contrary to existentialist ethics which upholds the sanctity of individuals, an individual is always situated within a community and as such all separate choices and existents are intricately linked with each individual in that community. Individual actions affect the community on the whole thus individual freedom cannot be unrestricted. Since wearing mask has been made a mandate for public safety and prosperity and an individual’s choice to not wear a mask during Covid-19 will have adverse effects on the community on the whole, Beauvoir would agree with the necessitation of wearing a mask during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Aristotle’s Moral Theory:

Aristotle’s moral theory, like Plato’s, focuses on virtue, recommending a virtuous way of life based on its relationship to happiness. His account associates happiness with high levels of soul activity. Excellent soul activity is linked to moral virtues and the virtue of “practical wisdom” – excellence in thinking and deciding how to behave. While Plato believes that the theory of forms plays a role in justifying virtue, Aristotle famously rejects it. Aristotle’s account of virtue is founded on his theory of the soul.

Aristotle then turns his attention to the human soul. He contends that there is, in fact, a human function, which can be found in the human soul’s characteristic activity, namely, the exercise of reason. Then, without further explanation, he asserts that this rational function is expressed in two distinct ways: on the one hand, by deliberating and issuing commands, and on the other, by obeying such commands. The part that has reason in itself deliberates on decisions, both short and long term. The part that obeys reason is that aspect of the soul that functions in a human being under the influence of reason, such as the appetites.

Aristotle then contends that, because the function of a human is to exercise the soul’s activities according to reason, the function of a good human is to exercise the soul’s activities according to reason well and finely. Given Aristotle’s distinction between two aspects of reason, it is clear that both can be done well or poorly. On the one hand, one can reason effectively or ineffectively about what to do in the next five minutes, twenty-four hours, or ten years. On the other hand, actions motivated by appetites can be well or poorly executed, and having an appetite at all can sometimes be a poorly executed, rather than a well-executed activity of the soul. A good human being, according to Aristotle, has a soul in which these functions are consistently performed well. Thus, good people reason well about short-term and long-term plans; and when they satisfy their appetites, and even when they have appetites, it is in accordance with reason.

Would Aristotle agree whether masks should be worn during the Covid 19 pandemic

The crux of Aristotle’s theory of morality is one’s soul and the actions it prompts. Whether they be good or bad. A good person, according to Aristotle, is one who consistently makes good decisions prompted by their soul. During this pandemic, Aristotle would agree that coming to the conclusion of wearing a mask to reduce transmission of this virus which is deadly to more vulnerable individual, out of one’s own appetite for goodness and not just because it is mandated by the state is the only way of being a good and moral person.