
How to deal with people who aren’t doing their bit to flatten the curve
ArticleRelationships
BY Matthew Beard 30 MAR 2020
You’ve been hitting us up with your COVID-19 ethical questions. We’ve been sending our ethicists into the philosophy lab to cook up some answers.
This week, we’re tackling how to deal with people who you don’t think are doing their bit to socially isolate and help restrict the spread of coronavirus.
How do I talk to loved ones who have a ’this won’t stop me living’ attitude to staying at home?
There’s a quote I’ve seen floating around social media lately that comes from British author, CS Lewis. It’s from his reflections on living in the age of the atomic bomb, but plenty of people seem to be seeing a link between it and the current crisis. It’s a chunky quote, but this part gets to the gist of it:
If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.
Lewis’ message is being shared as one of defiance: better to die on our feet than live on our knees. Don’t let the fear of a microbe stop us from doing the things that define meaningful life. I reckon some of your loved ones would happily share this quote on their Insta Stories if given the chance.
I’m also very confident that Lewis would be livid at the use of his quote in the context of the current pandemic. There’s a big difference between living through the threat of nuclear bombs – where you have little to no ability to affect what happens – and living through a pandemic where each of our individual actions make a real difference between life and death. I promise you this: if Lewis had thought there was something people could have done to stop an atomic bomb from killing them, he would have advised them to do that. Indeed, Lewis himself willingly lived on limited rations during WWII – not the kind of behaviour for someone who thinks we should live it up in the face of death.
But there is a way of reading Lewis’ quote that is helpful in the COVID-19 pandemic, and which might help you navigate your loved ones’ mindset. We should read Lewis’ quote as an encouragement not to let our external circumstances dictate our happiness. Rather than seeing ourselves as ‘waiting out’ the coronavirus, or living in fear of infection, perhaps it is helpful to keep living – just doing so indoors.
I’ve seen plenty of people suggest that they’ve cancelled screen limits on their phones so they can continually check live updates on the coronavirus issue. It’s tempting for it to be the only thing we talk or think about. It’s dominated most of my group chats for the last month. And here’s where we need to ask: is this really living? Wouldn’t it be better to go about our days as best we can in isolation, knowing we’d done all in our power to address the pandemic – and have made the most of life – rather sit in fear and anxiety?
Your loved ones need to get the message that nobody wants them to stop living: they just want to stop other people from dying. But the rest of us need to remember that life hasn’t stopped: there’s meaning, connection and value all around us – if we can just turn away from the fear and see it.
My flat-mate/parents/family aren’t observing physical distancing. I’m so worried, but they won’t stop. What do I do?
If you follow the advice of some politicians, you might consider reporting your flat-mates to the police. However, I’m not convinced that’s great advice for several reasons which I’ll come back to.
In situations where we witness someone else doing the wrong thing, it’s worth being aware of how our biases can kick in and cloud our judgement. We’ll often infer from someone’s behaviour the worst possible intentions.
Let’s say we see someone walk past a homeless person without even looking at them. It’s likely we’ll assume they’re callous or cold, rather than that, perhaps, they just didn’t see them. By contrast, if we did the same thing, we’d know whether or not we were being callous, because the only minds we can truly read are our own.
What this suggests is that you should begin by engaging from a position of curiosity. Do those not observing physical distancing actually know the rules? They certainly should, and ignorance isn’t an excuse at this point – being a good citizen and neighbour means knowing what we need to do to protect people – but if their behaviour is coming from ignorance, the solution might be easy: inform them.
Of course, there are plenty of people who know what they should do, and just don’t care. Here’s where things get tricky – especially if you’re outnumbered – because it’s very hard to persuade someone to be altruistic when they’re fundamentally motivated by self-interest. You’ve either got to convert them into a much more empathetic person or target their selfishness. The former is a long game; the latter is fraught with risk.
For instance, you might threaten to report them to the police if they keep flouting the rules. However, not only might that be a disproportionate response, it also robs your household of the community and solidarity that you’re probably going to rely on to get through isolation.
One possible solution is to leverage the power of shame. We’re social animals – desperate for inclusion and acceptance. If you can show these people how at odds their behaviour is with social expectations and norms, that will create a powerful impulse in them to self-correct. We don’t like doing things that might cause us to be ostracised – that’s probably the reason you haven’t spoken up until now.
But if you can harness the collective moral expectation for people to socially distance from one another, if you can show them that their behaviour makes them a pariah in the eyes of the community, you might find they change their behaviour on their own, and learn something in the process.
You can contact The Ethics Centre about any of the issues discussed in this article. We offer free counselling for individuals via Ethi-call; professional fee-for-service consulting, leadership and development services; and as a non-profit charity we rely heavily on donations to continue our work, which can be made via our website. Thank you.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY Matthew Beard
Matt is a moral philosopher with a background in applied and military ethics. In 2016, Matt won the Australasian Association of Philosophy prize for media engagement. Formerly a fellow at The Ethics Centre, Matt is currently host on ABC’s Short & Curly podcast and the Vincent Fairfax Fellowship Program Director.
3 Comments
Thanks Steve. Helpful contribution and comment.
I am thinking more and more about the challenge to make a positive contribution on issues I care about. The phrase ‘the standard you walk past is the standard you accept’ is used a lot these days. It can too easily be taken as a call to aggressively intervene. Can we care and affect without taking control over others?
First is to makes choices and actions that are within my own ability and do not impinge on the rights of others. It’s only a cop out if I see it that way or do not honestly do things I could.
ReplyIf you go through the Ethics Centre’s own ethical decision making processes you will first apply the Sunlight test – how will your decision not to follow the rules be judged in the public sphere, including a court of law? Next,(utilitarian) what creates the most benefit and reduces the most harm or provides the most benefit (not just to yourself but to others and the community)? Then, (Deontological) what would happen if everyone took the same decision as you; ie, what is your duty not just to yourself but everyone)? Then virtue, does the decision you make align with your values and your character, and is this what you would you want your children or colleagues to emulate? Closely aligned with virtues, is integrity and whether your decisions comes from a well-informed conscience? Purpose – do the ends justify the means? Care – will your decision reflect relational connectedness? Emotional – how will you feel if things go wrong and, lastly, the legal test – is it lawful? It is possible to be cavalier about any of these – however, overall it makes it difficult to ethically justify flouting the rules in respect to Covid, when we know that lives are at stake. Perhaps the trick is, how do you take people through that decision making process when they do not see their stand as having ethical importance?
ReplyHmmm, I appreciate the effort to address this question, but I’m not terribly satisfied with the resolution. It seems that there’s something mean-spirited about trying to control others, to have them do what I (or “we”) believe is best.
The underlying motivation appears to be one of “caring”. I care about these people flouting the rules because I care about myself and maybe them. But shaming and manipulating them to do what I think best becomes problematic.
For one thing, I might be wrong. Maybe what I’m recommending is NOT best practice albeit it is coming from the authorities. They are under enormous duress, and the hasty building and rebuilding of policy is almost certainly flawed. However, I agree, uncertainty is not conducive to decisive action. Nonetheless, it is important that I resist allowing the large gaping vacuum of uncertainty to be filled with prejudice and judgment which so readily rushes in.
The second issue (leaving aside the epistemology) is about the ethics of influencing others. I acknowledge the emotion, my caring, but does that justify my controlling others?
I can control myself. If my housemates are flounting the rules, I can look at how I might isolate myself from them. That is, I can look at protecting myself.
But what about getting others to do what I think is right to do? Well there’s a range of options (in a roughly escalating scale of invasiveness) – seeking and sharing information (NB sharing only information that supports my view is simply confirmation-bias at best and deceptive at worst), nagging, positive reinforcement (for doing the right thing), punishment (for doing the wrong thing – shaming, reporting, etc.).
Acting to change the behavior of others is certainly a possibility, but it requires solid epistemological and ethical supports – and I’m not sure that these are in place.
Personally, I’d make clear what I am going to do (self-isolate), try to reason with them, and then allow the remaining uncertainty about what is effective and right action rest as a mystery.
Yes, I agree, not terribly satisfying either.
Nonetheless, I this as an alternative to presuming that my feeling of indignation and outrage at others flouting the law and my caring deeply justifies intervention.
Reply
Join the conversation
Can we find meaning in isolation?