Ah! Ringo. Wisdom pounded out by a drummer of considerable fame, maybe as much fame as that of percussionists Gene Krupa, Buddy Rich, Max Roach, and, to include a female, Sheila E. Anyway, Ringo sings “It Don’t Come Easy,” in a kitschy video that has him playing a piano in a snowfield, learning to ski (badly), and driving a snowmobile about five mph. * And what doesn’t—sorry, Ringo, “don’t”—come easy? Why it’s trust.
And now we have a study about trust we had for leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. But first a word from yours truly. I remember the current (2021) Vice President saying that if “Trump developed” a vaccine, she wouldn’t take it, and then I remember her getting that injection before cameras. Hmmmnnnnn. Seems that trust is dependent upon a utilitarian philosophy, at least a philosophy of utilitarian self-interest. And now, what’s the message? Well, as Ringo sings in that song,
I don’t want much, I only want your trust,
And you know it don’t come easy.
First, the obvious, politics somehow got mixed into healthcare. That, as you know, happened quite some time ago, arising with nanny states like the UK and before that Socialist/Communist countries. Oh! Yeah, Canada and the US. Talk about drumbeats, about drummers! Is there an election cycle in the twentieth- or twenty-first century without at least some politicians pounding that healthcare drum? Drum? Maybe tympani, Ō-daiko, or The Purdue Big Bass Drum would be more appropriate references here. Boom!
Second, because politics became intertwined with medicine, a number of nations have placed their healthcare in the hands of political leaders and bureaucrats. We’re talking about our lives here, folks. So, the question comes to this: Do we trust political leaders, most with medical expertise limited to applying a Band-Aid strip to an accidental scratch by a paring knife, with our health? The paradox of 20-21 was that a candidate politician said no until she became the politician in charge. Again, hmmmmmnnnn.
Third, now we have a study on trust based on public policies set by “leaders.” In “Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis,” Jim A. C. Everett and others surveyed people in 22 countries to discover which of two utilitarian approaches instilled more trust in populations. ** One utilitarian approach adopts the philosophy of instrumental harm, whereas another adopts one of impartial beneficence. The former allows for choosing to save those most likely to be saved while sacrificing others; the latter, saving across a demographic regardless of the potential of individuals or special groups to be helped. Take ventilators, for example. They were the device of choice during the early days of the pandemic, and shortages were rampant. So, the question became one of using the ventilators on a population less prone to survival regardless of treatment, that is, the elderly, in favor of a population more prone to survival with the aid of ventilators, that is, the young. Instrumental harm would support saving the young and sacrificing the elderly. Impartial beneficence would support a shotgun scattering of resources—ventilators—to people regardless of their potential outcome. Throw into that mix of two choices the question about whether or not an affluent country should give away ventilators to noncitizens, that is, to people in developing countries. What do you think, Ringo?
Ordinarily, I would note the results of a study, but here, I believe your own thinking is important. Are you a utilitarian? If you are, which kind of utilitarian? An “instrumental harm” or an “impartial beneficence” kind of utilitarian? And in which kind of leader do you place your trust, in the one who says the country needs to share its resources with the world or the one who says the country must first tend to its own? The kind who proposes a policy of helping those most likely to be helped or one who proposes a policy that throws help into the general human wind even though that wind blows over those least likely to be helped? The one who says saving young people whose lives lie mostly before them or the one who says that saving old people whose lives lie mostly behind them? Here are some ventilators. You decide. ***
It don’t come easy.
Notes:
*Starr, Ringo. “It Don’t Come Easy.” Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvEexTomE1I Ringo, the drummer for the Beatles strangely plays the piano (with gloves on) and not the drum in the video. George Harrison reportedly helped Ringo in composing the song, but Ringo gets the credit.
** Everett, J.A.C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E. et al. Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis. Nat Hum Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y
***Trying not to make this political, but I have to ask whether or not the same issue of instrumental harm vs. impartial beneficence isn’t the crux of border immigration problems (crises?) in Europe and the US, especially in light of the not-so-long-ago emigrations from the Middle East and African developing nations and the ongoing emigrations from Central America.
And now we have a study about trust we had for leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. But first a word from yours truly. I remember the current (2021) Vice President saying that if “Trump developed” a vaccine, she wouldn’t take it, and then I remember her getting that injection before cameras. Hmmmnnnnn. Seems that trust is dependent upon a utilitarian philosophy, at least a philosophy of utilitarian self-interest. And now, what’s the message? Well, as Ringo sings in that song,
I don’t want much, I only want your trust,
And you know it don’t come easy.
First, the obvious, politics somehow got mixed into healthcare. That, as you know, happened quite some time ago, arising with nanny states like the UK and before that Socialist/Communist countries. Oh! Yeah, Canada and the US. Talk about drumbeats, about drummers! Is there an election cycle in the twentieth- or twenty-first century without at least some politicians pounding that healthcare drum? Drum? Maybe tympani, Ō-daiko, or The Purdue Big Bass Drum would be more appropriate references here. Boom!
Second, because politics became intertwined with medicine, a number of nations have placed their healthcare in the hands of political leaders and bureaucrats. We’re talking about our lives here, folks. So, the question comes to this: Do we trust political leaders, most with medical expertise limited to applying a Band-Aid strip to an accidental scratch by a paring knife, with our health? The paradox of 20-21 was that a candidate politician said no until she became the politician in charge. Again, hmmmmmnnnn.
Third, now we have a study on trust based on public policies set by “leaders.” In “Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis,” Jim A. C. Everett and others surveyed people in 22 countries to discover which of two utilitarian approaches instilled more trust in populations. ** One utilitarian approach adopts the philosophy of instrumental harm, whereas another adopts one of impartial beneficence. The former allows for choosing to save those most likely to be saved while sacrificing others; the latter, saving across a demographic regardless of the potential of individuals or special groups to be helped. Take ventilators, for example. They were the device of choice during the early days of the pandemic, and shortages were rampant. So, the question became one of using the ventilators on a population less prone to survival regardless of treatment, that is, the elderly, in favor of a population more prone to survival with the aid of ventilators, that is, the young. Instrumental harm would support saving the young and sacrificing the elderly. Impartial beneficence would support a shotgun scattering of resources—ventilators—to people regardless of their potential outcome. Throw into that mix of two choices the question about whether or not an affluent country should give away ventilators to noncitizens, that is, to people in developing countries. What do you think, Ringo?
Ordinarily, I would note the results of a study, but here, I believe your own thinking is important. Are you a utilitarian? If you are, which kind of utilitarian? An “instrumental harm” or an “impartial beneficence” kind of utilitarian? And in which kind of leader do you place your trust, in the one who says the country needs to share its resources with the world or the one who says the country must first tend to its own? The kind who proposes a policy of helping those most likely to be helped or one who proposes a policy that throws help into the general human wind even though that wind blows over those least likely to be helped? The one who says saving young people whose lives lie mostly before them or the one who says that saving old people whose lives lie mostly behind them? Here are some ventilators. You decide. ***
It don’t come easy.
Notes:
*Starr, Ringo. “It Don’t Come Easy.” Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvEexTomE1I Ringo, the drummer for the Beatles strangely plays the piano (with gloves on) and not the drum in the video. George Harrison reportedly helped Ringo in composing the song, but Ringo gets the credit.
** Everett, J.A.C., Colombatto, C., Awad, E. et al. Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis. Nat Hum Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01156-y
***Trying not to make this political, but I have to ask whether or not the same issue of instrumental harm vs. impartial beneficence isn’t the crux of border immigration problems (crises?) in Europe and the US, especially in light of the not-so-long-ago emigrations from the Middle East and African developing nations and the ongoing emigrations from Central America.
RSS Feed