As the world locks down, the idea that the “remedy is worse than the cure” is gaining (mostly disreputable) followers. But we
are set to have one of the worst economic quarters in modern history and, of course, GDP per capita, for all its flaws, proxies real human welfare.
This is one of the better arguments that the world’s response has been vastly harmful, though
read this counterpoint by Rob Wiblin. It’s also worth looking at
this piece, which considers the question from the opposite direction: how much should we be willing to pay to
shorten a lockdown, given its enormous cost? (Spoiler:
a lot.)
Personally, I’m with Rob, but I’m intrigued by the number of people who say we shouldn’t even
ask about the cost/benefit analysis (see, for example, the replies to
Robin Hanson’s tweet on the topic). It’s understandable. There’s a certain icky-ness to utilitarianism. People recoil at the idea that you can put a price on a human life, even though public and private actors
have to do so all the time (There’s an analogue here with arguments about the
moral limits of markets).
It’s too easy, though, to frame this as smart utilitarians and their irrational critics. The pandemic is fraught with radical uncertainty. We barely know what’s actually happening, let alone what second- and third-order effects to count (How much weight do we put on
China’s lower emissions in February?) And, of course, even choosing the right ethical framework is fraught with difficulty. Whenever I feel especially sure of a moral intuition I re-listen to
this excellent podcast and downgrade my confidence a little.
