Often, in times of crisis, individual freedoms are put under pressure. The security argument was widely put forward during the terrorist attacks. Currently, the health argument is taking over. At first glance, it’s difficult to thwart something that aims to save lives. And yet, we can ask the question. Some question this confinement, while others do not imagine being able to get out of it for months. Even argue for stricter measures. So, should the health argument prevail over individual freedoms?
For the French philosopher André Comte-Sponville, the answer is no. In an interview with Time, the 68-year-old man, who, as a reminder, was a member of the National Ethics Advisory Committee for the Life Sciences and Health in France, does not go with the back of the spoon.
“I have two news to tell you, good and bad. The bad is that we are all going to die. The good is that the vast majority of us will die from something other than Covid-19 “, he said at the outset.
“I’m anxious, I’m not afraid of dying from this virus. It scares me a lot less than Alzheimer’s disease. And if I get it, I still have a 95% chance of surviving it Why should I be afraid? What worries me is not my health, it is the fate of young people. With the economic recession which results from confinement, it is young people who will pay the heaviest price, whether in the form of unemployment or debt. To sacrifice young people for the health of the old is an aberration, “he added.
For the philosopher, traditionally, it was the elders who sacrificed themselves for their children, but the trend was reversed with the coronavirus crisis. He also points out that the medical system is expensive and needs to be funded. Funding that can only follow if the economy is flourishing. “It is an illusion to believe that money will flow freely. It is our children who will pay the debt, for a disease which must be remembered as the average age of death that it causes is 81 years,” he said.
Without sending the old to the pillory, André Comte-Sponville has the idea that confinement should be limited to the time to manage the overload of hospitals. Once the situation becomes manageable, the containment should be reviewed, he said.
Besides the pavement in the pond sent by the philosopher, he also puts his finger on the fact that scientists and health are now at the heart of any debate. That health is set up as “supreme value”. For him, health was previously a means of achieving happiness. Henceforth, it would be the only end, the only goal. “God is dead, long live health insurance,” he says, provocative. Man, believing in his youth, has considered himself for decades as a materialist – in the philosophical sense of the term – who advocates a spirituality without God. He deplores the fact that human beings no longer accept death as part of their humanity. “Let’s stop dreaming of omnipotence and constant happiness. Finitude, failure and obstacles are part of the human condition. Until we accept death, we will be in a panic with each epidemic. And why so of whining compassion around Covid-19, and not for the war in Syria, the tragedy of migrants or the nine million humans (including three million children) who die from malnutrition? It is morally and psychologically unbearable “, he adds.
“Let us die as we want! Alzheimer’s or cancer claim many more victims than the coronavirus; do we care? We mourn the deaths in medico-social establishments, but must we remember that in general, Are we going to die? Sorry I’m not sanitary correct! “, he adds. A position which will certainly provoke debate, but which has the merit of being clear.
–
