The Conflict Between Greater Good and Individual Rights: A Critical Examination of COVID-19 Policies

During the pandemic, the debate over whether the greater good prevails over respect for individual rights has been at the forefront. This article explores the conflict, examining the assumptions behind the conception of the greater good and questioning the legitimacy of imposing such policies on individuals. It also delves into the ineffectiveness of some measures and the infringement of liberties.

Who Defines the Greater Good?

The term 'greater good' itself is often vague and can be misused by policymakers to implement overly restrictive measures. Even if there is an objective greater good, who has the right to decide on what the 'greater good' entails and how it should be enforced? This question raises significant ethical and legal concerns. The assumption that one group has the authority to impose policies on society is at the heart of the problem.

COVID-19 and Restrictions

Regarding the specific case of COVID-19, it is important to note that the virus is not airborne and does not spread outdoors. Therefore, restrictive measures in outdoor spaces are largely unnecessary and may infringe on personal liberties without a clear rationale. Inside private property, the owner should have the right to determine the rules. As for public spaces, decisions should be made by representative bodies, adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Negative Impact of Restrictive Measures

While the aim of these measures is to protect public health, their implementation can have significant negative consequences. Restrictions not only harm businesses and economies but also create a sense of paranoia and a sense of second-class citizenship among the population. Mandated mask-wearing, which has little scientific backing, further exacerbates these issues. It is crucial to question whether the singular focus on the greater good justifies such extensive and often unnecessary limitations.

Individual Rights vs. Collective Protection

In the case of communicable diseases, individual rights take precedence when they pose a health risk to others. For example, quarantine measures for carriers of typhoid and those infected with tuberculosis are justified because they protect the rights of others from being violated. However, the concept of the greater good must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it does not override individual liberties without any adequate justification.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

The history of public health measures, such as the example of the 1940s, provides a stark warning about the misuse of the greater good concept. The actions of Nazi Germany, which involved the murder of 12 million individuals under the guise of improving the "Aryan race," illustrate the dangerous potential of prioritizing the greater good over individual rights. This extreme example should serve as a cautionary tale.

While stricter measures may be necessary in some cases, they should be based on clear and objective criteria that protect individual rights while also ensuring public health. This approach requires a balance between safeguarding the collective good and respecting individual freedoms.