See two news today:
- The director of Jinyintan Hospital urges recovered patients to donate plasma to save critical patients
- Six people who were discharged from Shanghai Xinguan were willing to donate plasma
The plasma of the newly crowned patients has been proven to have a therapeutic effect on the patients with current symptoms, and the research on antibodies and the development of specific therapeutic drugs are also important.
So this turned into a Trolley Problem in real life: at both ends of the bifurcated railway, one end is a patient with an illness, and the other end is not a rehabilitation patient, but the principle of voluntary blood donation.
Ethics tells us that at least 8 different theories of value orientation are utilitarianism, obligation theory, egoism, emotionalism, intuitionism, virtue theory, contract theory, and sacred command theory.
So the question is, which one to use in the new crown scenario?
Which one to use of course has a lot to do with buttocks, but intuitively, most people should choose utilitarianism (compulsory blood donation), and a small number of people will choose obligation theory (voluntary principle).
This is a bit like a question of procedural justice or outcome justice: should the courts accept the evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in violation of the law?
Back to the background, do a thought experiment: the epidemic situation in A and B is similar. A chose to donate blood. As a result, A's epidemic was quickly brought under control. The economy recovered immediately. It was only occasionally coped with by some social injustice; B chose the voluntary principle, the epidemic took a long time to control, the economy fell into a prolonged downturn, and the population was continuously lost (a considerable part went to A). Gradually declining. If he knew the end, would B still choose that way?
Of course, the examples of A and B can have a better solution, that is, choose the voluntary principle, and everyone is very conscious and really volunteered to donate. So the question turns into: What causes the level of consciousness?
In addition, forcing and voluntariness are also grayscale, not black and white. Forcibly tying blood together is unlikely to happen, but is public opinion also a kind of "force"? "Public opinion pressure" or "deep pleading" is not so clear-cut.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
originally posted in Chinese on 2020-2-14 at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzU1ODg0MDk4NQ==&mid=2247484003&idx=1&sn=71f7028a31e8ddb8d95d618704d54948&chksm=fc212f95cb56a6838efca78fec53dd59795128c05677cd9a0437c668068cf87fd25713f5f328&token=1788108391&lang=zh_CN#rd
今天看到两个新闻：
- 金银潭医院院长恳请康复患者捐献血浆拯救危重病人
- 上海新冠治愈出院的人中，有6名愿意捐献血浆
新冠康复者的血浆被证明血浆对现症患者有治疗作用，且对抗体的研究和对特效治疗药物的研发也有重要帮助。
于是这变成了一道现实生活中的电车难题：分叉的铁路两端，一端是现症患者，另一端倒不是康复患者，而是自愿献血的原则。
伦理学告诉我们，至少8种价值取向各不相同的理论，分别是功利主义、义务论、利己主义、情感主义、直觉主义、德性论、契约论和神圣命令论。
所以问题是，新冠的场景下，该用哪一个？
该用哪一个当然和屁股做哪里很有关系，但直觉来看应该大部分人会选择功利主义（强迫献血），小部分人会选择义务论（自愿原则）。
这又有点像程序正义还是结果正义的问题：执法人员违法获得的罪证，法庭该不该采信？
回到背景，做一个思想实验：A地和B地疫情差不多，A选择了强迫献血，结果A的疫情很快控制住了，经济马上复苏，人民群众又回到了正常的生活轨道上重新富裕起来，只是偶尔会被一些社会不公膈应一下；B选择了自愿原则，疫情花了很久才控制住，经济陷入长时期的低迷，人口不断流失（相当一部分是去了A地），从此由欣欣向荣转向了逐步没落。如果知道终局，B还会这么选么？
当然了，A和B的例子可以有更好的解法，就是选择自愿原则，而且大家觉悟很高还真的自愿去捐了。所以问题转变为：是什么会导致觉悟的高低呢？
另外就是，强迫和自愿本身也是灰度的，也不是非黑即白的。强行捆走抽血这种不太会发生，但舆论是否也是一种“强迫”呢？“舆论压力”或者“深切恳求”，没有那么泾渭分明。