Finding the common good in the COVID-19 pandemic

America today is engaged in a deep and broad philosophical/ethical debate unlike anything in our history: What is the common good in the midst of a pandemic?

To help surface this debate, I called Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel. His lectures on justice have been devoured by millions of students around the world, and he’s just finishing a book on why we’ve lost sight of the common good. (Disclosure: He’s a longtime friend and colleague.) I began our combination phoneemail interview with this question: What do we actually mean by the common good?

Sandel: The common good is about how we live together in community. It’s about the ethical ideals we strive for together, the benefits and burdens we share, the sacrifices we make for one another. … But the common good, like all ethical ideals, is contestable.

Friedman: How would you describe the actual competing positions? Sandel: Think about the two emblematic slogans of the pandemic: “social distancing” and “we’re all in this together.” As a response to the pandemic, we need both. Friedman: There has been a lot of discussion … about “herd immunity” — let a lot of people quickly get the virus, most will recover fine, tend to the most ill, but within a period of weeks a critical mass of people who become immune will eventually force the virus to peter out. Sandel: “Herd immunity” is a callous approach reminiscent of social Darwinism — the idea of the survival of the fittest. … (It’s) far from the ideal of solidarity, which requires that we show as much care and concern for those who are weak and vulnerable as for those who are strong and powerful.

I understand, though, that responsible public health experts have a less harsh scenario in mind.

Friedman: It’s a phased strategy: 1) Practice social distancing and sheltering in place across the country for at least two weeks, so whoever has the disease would likely manifest symptoms in that period.

2) Alongside this we would do much more testing, to actually get a grasp on which regions and age cohorts are most affected.

3) Once we have enough of that data, we can then begin phasing healthy and immune workers back into the workplace, or back to school, while still sequestering those who are elderly or immunecompromised until the “all-clear.”

It seems to me that their argument is also grounded in the common good. They’re arguing that “work” and the overall health of the economy is also a health issue. If we have millions of people who have lost businesses that they have spent a lifetime building or savings that they have spent a lifetime accruing, we will have an epidemic of suicide, despair and addiction that will dwarf the COVID-19 epidemic.

Do we just have to make a hellish trade-off between medical health and economic health?

Sandel: It all depends on whether we can start to reorganize the economy in a way that promotes the common good.

It is clear that this era requires an economy that provides universal access to health care, paid sick leave for all workers and economic support for those who lose their jobs, whether due to a pandemic or technology or other circumstances beyond their control.

Here’s an idea: Why not consider, as a condition of sending Americans back to work, extending these health and economic protections to all Americans for the next 18 months? Maybe this gesture of solidarity will prove habitforming — and worth continuing even when the virus recedes.