In reply to JHiley:
Sorry I missed your interesting post before.
> Utilitarianism relies on the assumptions that you can both predict and fully comprehend the consequences of a decision.
Yes, this is definitely a flaw with utilitarianism as a moral theory in general. But I think it's more of a problem if you're thinking about your actions as an individual. When we're talking about policy, specifically about a public health crisis, if we just throw up our hands and say "it's impossible to know the consequences" then there just isn't any basis on which to make decisions. I don't think this is a valid objection to making policy decisions on a utilitarian basis.
> It is also impossible to compare the suffering/ harm associated with dying x number of years early from covid vs that of deteriorating horrifically from dementia over months, alone, or of a young person being slowly driven to suicide.
I agree that it's impossible to get to some answer you can really claim is right. However, if you make no attempt to balance the different harms that are consequences of different policy options then how do you choose between them? If the consequence of your policy to control the pandemic is going to be some suicides as people lose the futures they had envisaged and are starved of social contact, then what else can you do except *try* to consider whether that cost is going to have to be accepted as less bad than the meltdown that would result from not having restrictions?
There is no possible calculation that's going to put numbers on these things and come to a correct answer, however, I don't see any alternative but to try to weigh up the best assessment of the consequences of different policy options. I'm completely convinced that trying to control the virus as effectively as possible (all the opportunities which were missed along the way, e.g. closing borders as soon as we knew about it) would have had the lowest total of human suffering.
> On the other hand restrictions on pubs, group sizes, theatres, climbing walls, holiday quarantine etc don't need to cause harm beyond a trivial level...
Seems to me that you're just doing your own utilitarian calculus and coming up with different weightings than the government.
> If you want an example of a society run on utilitarian principles look at China.
Assuming that you don't like the way China does things, aren't you just saying that their utilitarian calculus is wonky? Presumably the reason you don't like the the way China does things is because you don't think it leads to human flourishing/happiness/freedom from suffering?
Or do think that China succeeds in maximising utility with its policies, but you don't like it because it fails at some other moral goal? If you don't like what China does, you surely have a basis for that judgement, one that isn't utilitarian?
> I always preferred some combination of Kant's "treat people as ends in themselves" and Jesus' (basically)"treat people as you would be treated"
They have their appeal when thinking about individual actions but are completely useless when it comes to policy. There's never going to be a way to organise society so that in dealing with a crisis we treat each individual as an end in themselves - you can't make decisions about how you share e.g. health resources like a vaccine on that basis.
Interesting stuff though!