Ethical Engagement: Pandemic Version

I have been incredibly humbled several times the last couple of months during the pandemic. My hope is that all of you have been humbled as well, and regardless if you have, I encourage everyone to find ways to be humbled in the future and to engage in difficult discourse.

I’m going to be perfectly candid for a second. I consider myself to possess above average intelligence in terms of critical thinking and comprehension of multifaceted issues. Moreover, as someone who studies and practices theology as a professional career, I’m more than cognizant of the inherent complexity of the world in terms of ethical issues. My experience of the last couple of months, however, has been even more humbling than usual as I witness the profound moral ambiguity surrounding the decisions to address COVID-19.

I think what upsets me more than anything at the present is when people do NOT recognize that these decisions ARE laden with layers of complexity; decisions about reopening, combatting the virus, etc. have protracted implications that are far beyond anyone’s comprehension. Addressing the pandemic is NOT simply a “right” vs. “wrong” decision, just as many actual ethical dilemmas are not. And I have been humbled by the degree of nuance in this situation, and I hope that many others have- or will be- too.

This past weekend is a prime example. As many of us know, Iowa received permission to partially open restaurants, salons, and gyms at 50% capacity in its remaining 22 counties (including Polk/Dallas, which is the most heavily populated part of our state.) And this decision was met with significant CONTROVERSY. Some people were cheering for this decision, and other people were not. A number of my friends on Facebook were frustrated with this decision because they did not think it was safe enough to open due to the fact that we were not far enough past our peak. As a way of venting this frustration, they posted statuses from all of the restaurants in the area that were choosing to NOT comply with this loosened restriction; these restaurants would still be operating on a carryout/delivery basis only.

First, I want to validate that I LOVE that people care so much about people’s safety. In a world filled with mass consumerism and obsession over the almighty dollar, it’s incredible to see people value people’s health and lives as a top priority. However, my concern is that in pursuance of these values, people’s understanding of the situation misses several nuances and context that are ALSO vital in knowing how to make decisions that lead to human flourishing. (I know that I certainly am guilty of missing parts of the context!) And so, in the above example, the implicit assumption then seems to be this: “Restaurants that open for dine in are “bad.” Restaurants that remain closed for dine in are “good.” Whether or not individuals intend for this to be the message, it is certainly a justifiable interpretation based on the statuses presented. Posting statuses only from restaurants that are NOT opening- without any other context or words- seems to suggest that these are the restaurants we need to pay attention to and patronize because they are doing the “right” thing.

Nevertheless, the “right” decision is not usually so simple, nor is it easily mandated as the most “moral” decision to every single business across the city/state. Here are a couple of examples of how I was “humbled” as I learned just how complex the decision to reopen or not was for restaurants. One of my Facebook friends (who is also a small business owner), explained that for some restaurants, they might be sticking with carryout/delivery because it’s a better financial decision. Since restaurants have to maintain <50% capacity, they won’t be making as much money, and so it’s better for them economically to simply do carryout/delivery because then they don’t have to pay extra staff. So, what is driving restaurants decision to open vs. not open? I’m sure there are a VARIETY of factors, and they really DO care about the health and safety of their staff. However…let’s be honest, economics HAS to play into their decision in some capacity. It’s not fair to simply state that the restaurants “not opening” are MORE moral because they are staying closed for “health concerns.” Yes, like I said, that certainly could be part of their decision, but it might not be all of it. Dollars could definitely be a driving factor in their decision. And, if restaurants are smart, they are GOING to phrase it as a concern for public safety because it sells. #shrug Now, I’m definitely not blasting restaurants that do this right now- they simply need to earn an income and put food on the table like the rest of us. What I AM saying, however, is that it is a gross oversimplification to say that one restaurant is more “moral” than the other simply based on their decision to reopen or not because you don’t know the entire context.

Here’s another example. Dissident Daughter, Amy, is a regular at Drake Diner and knows the staff there pretty well. She informed me that Drake Diner’s situation is fairly fortunate with the pandemic because they have already paid off their mortgage. They’ve been a restaurant staple in Des Moines since 1987, so they don’t have a mortgage. Okay, if a business doesn’t have a mortgage, it is much easier to have some flexibility with your production and business model. You can afford to keep the business afloat and operate on a carryout/delivery basis for a much longer time than a new restaurant. If someone has just opened their restaurant in the last couple of years, they are in a much more precarious financial position. It is so incredibly challenging to pit these businesses against one another as “ethical/right” vs. “unethical/wrong” because their situations are so different. Maybe some are motivated only by profit for their decisions, and maybe some are not. It.Is.Complex.

There’s an argument that can –and has been- made that it doesn’t matter what the particulars are; businesses should not open, period. It does not matter if they are in danger of closing if they don’t open their dining room; the fact is that they simply should not open because it increases our exposure to one another. And, I guess, here’s my stance on this. If you don’t think that restaurants/businesses should be opening, that’s great. I love that you feel that strongly about people’s health and well-being and that you have a passionate opinion. However, a couple of things. 1) If you yourself have a job, you need to acknowledge that your opinion comes from a place of privilege. No, I’m not trying to shame you- we all possess privilege in different ways. I currently have my job (although I did experience an FTE reduction), so I’m personally in a place of privilege. But you DO need to acknowledge that the fact that you have a job and can pay your bills is PRIVILEGE. And so be careful when you make judgments about businesses and restaurants because you do not know what it is like to be desperate for income or to see your dream/future crumbling around you. 2) If you think that businesses should not open, again, that’s great. There’s certainly a strong ethical argument for that, and I myself could potentially be persuaded to believe it (Again, I don’t have firm opinion at the moment because I haven’t done enough research to be satisfied.) BUT, BUT, if you believe they should not open, then you sure as hell better be advocating for some sort of universal basic income or recurring monthly pandemic payments from Congress. And I don’t just mean that you should possess these beliefs- you should be acting and advocating for them. You should be calling representatives, encouraging others to do so, writing opinion pieces, lobbying for support, etc.  Because if people don’t have any other safety net, they honestly don’t have any other choice but TO OPEN. I don’t think it’s fair to judge someone for trying to put food on the table with the only means they have and then not support them in any other way.

We absolutely need to be having these conversations because the situation is so complex. Because here’s the other wrinkle in these ethical dilemmas; I also don’t think that we should unequivocally accept people’s decisions. That’s another trend that has been occurring on social media. People are starting to realize that the situation is complex (#progress) and variables are different for each individual and business, so now there’s a push to simply “accept” whatever decision the individual/business makes because they must know what’s best for them.

I also really struggle with this because individuals cannot possibly possess all of the world’s wisdom unto themselves themselves, and this “acceptance” philosophy reeks of 1) blind individualistic assumptions about epistemology; and 2) a lack of knowing how to engage in difficult conversations with one another. I, Anne Alesch, do NOT have all of the answers about how the hell to conduct my life. I WANT people to challenge me with alternative opinions and experiences. If someone simply accepts that I know what’s best for myself, how can I ever grow? How can I ever expand and diversify my wisdom? Like I mentioned, by most standards, I’m a fairly intelligent individual. And yet, if I did not have other people challenge or push me, I would have started wearing a mask probably a month later than I did. One of my good friends is a case manager for Taylor House, and she mailed me a mask very early in the pandemic. Not only did she kindly do this, she informed me of all of the reasons that I needed to wear it. (Like I said, this was very early in the pandemic- late March- before masks became so ubiquitous and the justification for wearing them so clear and prevalent.) And she was right- I didn’t want to wear a mask, but she convinced me otherwise. So I wore the damn mask way back in March because she helped me grow. What if my friend had simply said, “You do you, boo. You know yourself best”? I wouldn’t have worn a mask, and who knows what sort of germs I may have spewed in the month until I was forced to start wearing one. Surface level acceptance is NOT good enough; we have to be open to having difficult conversations with one another. (And before I sound like a pompous asshole, believe me, there are many times during the pandemic and other phases of my life where I have completely screwed this up. I’ve blown my mom and dad out about their beliefs without listening more times than I care to remember.)

And I think that this is where the tension lies; we seem to alternate from one extreme to another. First, we judge the hell out of each other and organizations for decisions and make blanket moral declarations about these determinations, but then we also go to the other extreme where we want to unequivocally accept any decision a person/organization makes because “they must know themselves best.” What is MISSING in both of these extremes is the ability to converse with one another as human beings. What is MISSING is our ability to articulate our context and stance, to be open to possible critiques, and to find ways to constructively challenge someone else’s decisions. Don’t get me wrong- it’s hard as hell. It’s hard as hell to have difficult conversations with one another, especially when the stakes are SO HIGH and when our emotions are running rampant from stress. It’s excruciatingly challenging to not get defensive with someone else’s words, and it’s also equally demanding to find a way to critique someone without being too judgmental and harsh. These conversations are difficult in the best of times, and during a pandemic, they can be downright debilitating.

But we HAVE to do them. We HAVE to practice them. We must practice being less defensive, we must practice compassionate tone and articulation when offering suggestions, and we must practice these discussions. It’s the only way that we will grow as individuals, and it’s the only way that we will grow in our ability to construct effective public policy. We have to listen to the diverse number of stories and ideas, and we have to fine tune them so that we attempt to alleviate the myriad of suffering people are experiencing with this pandemic.

Here’s one example of the benefits that occur from difficult conversations. As I briefly touched on earlier, the universal basic income has received more attention in recent months because of the vast unemployment rates across the country. Like most ideas, this one has its merits along with its drawbacks. Some of the drawbacks include the fact that it could cause inflation, it could decrease incentive to work, and it could reduce funding for other social services. Potentially legitimate critiques, right? Well, someone else fine-tuned the idea, and they said that maybe universal basic income shouldn’t always exist, but there should be “triggers” that set whether or not it is in action. For example, if the national unemployment rate was at a certain level, THEN it would be enacted. Or, like if a state had declared a state of emergency, then it would be enacted. 

I’m not saying that the final version of the idea is one that should be proposed or that it is free of flaws. I’m merely pointing out that we are in a world of hurt right now, and unless we are willing to have difficult conversations where we both LISTEN to someone else’s context and opinion AND are open to PROVIDING compassionate feedback, we are NOT going to be able to come up with creative solutions to minimize the suffering from the sickness, unemployment, isolation, etc.

Moreover, on a more personal level, unless we are willing to listen to each other and offer feedback, we are missing out on an opportunity to deepen our connections. If we judge without listening, or if we accept without conversing, then we are losing our ability to connect and engage on a intimate level. And this, my friends, means that we run the risk of only connecting on the surface level with one another. We hinder our ability to foster that intimacy and understanding that only come when you risk vulnerability with one another.

In summary, ethics are complicated. Don’t make blanket assumptions about someone or something’s morality without better understanding the context, and even then, have some humility. However, don’t also blindly accept decisions because we all need our perspectives challenged so that we can grow and enhance our worldview. Listen, engage, and advocate. Hear one another, provide feedback, and promote new creative solutions so that we can cultivate human flourishing.