Dilemitism and covid 19
Dilemitism. Crucible where the all theories of lawyers and doctors are cooked: conviction or freedom; healthy or sick; normal or abnormal. Also from Religion: hell or heaven, faithful or atheist; and without forgetting Politics and the Economy: nationalism or integration. And the whole society as well: man or woman, skinny or fat, rich or poor, intelligent or silly, black or white, beautiful or ugly, capitalism or communism, north or south, married or single.
We are binary. Like Hamlet, we are or we are not, or in the worst case we believe that we only have two options to choose from as if the universe was not as diverse as nature itself. Positivism came to seal this social paradigm in order to measure social phenomena, to try to have control of reality.
For a dilemma to exist, there must be two options, the positive or the negative, or we believe that there are only two because it is the most convenient. We reduce the analysis of reality to the choice of extremes because we consider it is less risky than entering to consider the other possible courses that our decisions may have.
Dilemitism is not the problem; it is to believe that we only have two options to choose from. When this happens, millions of people fall into indifference, discrimination and invisibility, from the LGTBI population to people with physical or mental disabilities, among many others.
In Bioethics, with few exceptions, questions should be approached as problems, not as dilemmas. The dilemma generally tries to apply rationality when looking for solutions, while the problem puts more emphasis on the procedure, on the path used.
In the scenario of dilemitism, it is considered that Bioethics must offer reasons for making the right decision, usually the one that is most likely to be successful, with the drawback that ethical issues are resolved as technical problems; Thus, ethical decisions end up being technocratic, for example when it is stated that a treatment does not harm because it has been tried before or is registered for other uses.
As a consequence of the above, the decisions end up being all utilitarian by maximizing preferences in favor of the largest number of people involved. However, in some cases, this is correct when, for Public Health reasons, for example, contacts for contagious diseases are tracked or social isolation is carried out.
Dilemitism has as one of its most serious disadvantages the creating, promotion and reproduction of the so called “owners of the truth”, those who do not accept more truth than their own because the other is wrong or immoral, imposing it on others as universal and immutable.
The problematic mindset is different. It is always assumed that reality is much richer than we imagine and no one can encompass reality in all its complexity. In judging, the only thing we have to share is reflection and prudence. In this procedure, no one possesses absolute moral truth, so collective moral deliberation is necessary: all perspectives of all affected people are important. This is largely the reason why it is problem since some do not want to listen to many and even when possible, the mechanisms of social participation are very formal, such as plebiscites and in other cases, not very accessible to a vast majority. Even the most consolidated Democracy fails.
Of course, life cannot only be made up of decisions based on the problem deliberation process, since at some point it will be necessary to take one or the other position. To reconcile the dilemitism and the problem rational, it seems that the path is rational and prudent deliberation, but evaluating all possible scenarios and alternative solutions.
Dilemistism should be resorted to only when two options really exist or for Human Rights reasons. It seems to me that we will all agree on choosing between slavery and freedom.
Today, facing the covid-19 pandemic, as in times of war, between closing or opening borders or between freedom or isolation, it is quite evident that the reasoning is inclined towards life and health. However, the approach to the problems decition making is possible if it is accepted that there are more scenarios and other solutions.
From this dialectic, the evidence and the collaboration of the existing social actors, through the legal and democratic channels, should be the guideline to suggest the steps to follow.
We are binary. Like Hamlet, we are or we are not, or in the worst case we believe that we only have two options to choose from as if the universe was not as diverse as nature itself. Positivism came to seal this social paradigm in order to measure social phenomena, to try to have control of reality.
For a dilemma to exist, there must be two options, the positive or the negative, or we believe that there are only two because it is the most convenient. We reduce the analysis of reality to the choice of extremes because we consider it is less risky than entering to consider the other possible courses that our decisions may have.
Dilemitism is not the problem; it is to believe that we only have two options to choose from. When this happens, millions of people fall into indifference, discrimination and invisibility, from the LGTBI population to people with physical or mental disabilities, among many others.
In Bioethics, with few exceptions, questions should be approached as problems, not as dilemmas. The dilemma generally tries to apply rationality when looking for solutions, while the problem puts more emphasis on the procedure, on the path used.
In the scenario of dilemitism, it is considered that Bioethics must offer reasons for making the right decision, usually the one that is most likely to be successful, with the drawback that ethical issues are resolved as technical problems; Thus, ethical decisions end up being technocratic, for example when it is stated that a treatment does not harm because it has been tried before or is registered for other uses.
As a consequence of the above, the decisions end up being all utilitarian by maximizing preferences in favor of the largest number of people involved. However, in some cases, this is correct when, for Public Health reasons, for example, contacts for contagious diseases are tracked or social isolation is carried out.
Dilemitism has as one of its most serious disadvantages the creating, promotion and reproduction of the so called “owners of the truth”, those who do not accept more truth than their own because the other is wrong or immoral, imposing it on others as universal and immutable.
The problematic mindset is different. It is always assumed that reality is much richer than we imagine and no one can encompass reality in all its complexity. In judging, the only thing we have to share is reflection and prudence. In this procedure, no one possesses absolute moral truth, so collective moral deliberation is necessary: all perspectives of all affected people are important. This is largely the reason why it is problem since some do not want to listen to many and even when possible, the mechanisms of social participation are very formal, such as plebiscites and in other cases, not very accessible to a vast majority. Even the most consolidated Democracy fails.
Of course, life cannot only be made up of decisions based on the problem deliberation process, since at some point it will be necessary to take one or the other position. To reconcile the dilemitism and the problem rational, it seems that the path is rational and prudent deliberation, but evaluating all possible scenarios and alternative solutions.
Dilemistism should be resorted to only when two options really exist or for Human Rights reasons. It seems to me that we will all agree on choosing between slavery and freedom.
Today, facing the covid-19 pandemic, as in times of war, between closing or opening borders or between freedom or isolation, it is quite evident that the reasoning is inclined towards life and health. However, the approach to the problems decition making is possible if it is accepted that there are more scenarios and other solutions.
From this dialectic, the evidence and the collaboration of the existing social actors, through the legal and democratic channels, should be the guideline to suggest the steps to follow.
