Peter Espeut | Compromising on morality can never be right

Is it a case of poor judgement, ethical lapse, or being out of touch with the Jamaican people? Or all three?

On July 2 last in this column, I criticised Prime Minister Holness for not just relaxing the stringent curfew requirements and gathering limits, but for reopening the entertainment sector, allowing small and large gatherings (over 100 people).

He was not following the science, which sets a positive infection rate of five per cent as the threshold of the comfort zone. During the month prior to his announcement, the positivity rate dipped below five per cent on only two isolated occasions – June 9 (3.04 per cent) and June 14 (4.33 per cent). It went as high as 17.16 per cent (May 29).

In that column I asserted: “Opening the door to large parties – however masked the drinkers are, and however socially distant the dancing partners – runs the risk of promoting super-spreaders and a third wave.”

We are now on the upward swing of a deadly third wave triggered by the policy changes announced by the prime minister, with the positivity rate in the 30s and 40s. The onset of community spread last year was triggered by the general election campaign which was a super-spreader.

CALLED INTO QUESTION

The soundness of the judgement of the Cabinet of Jamaica – and of the prime minister in particular – must be called into question.

The decision to overrule the government’s environmental agency which disallowed limestone mining on Puerto Bueno Mountain in St Ann was another lapse in sound judgement by the prime minister. There have been others.

Calling on the Government to resign is pointless, as the record of the other political tribe is so much worse!

At the time he announced the poor decision to allow large parties, Prime Minister Holness showed he was not ignorant of the risk, but placed his confidence in the personal discipline of Jamaicans; he said: “I too have the fear that there probably could be a spike, but I have great faith and confidence in our people.”

On what would such faith and confidence be based? From the outset Jamaicans have demonstrated flagrant disregard for the pandemic protocols designed to reduce infections and deaths (and the Road Code, and the Anti-Litter Law, and the laws relating to praedial larceny). Is this another example of poor judgement, or is PM Holness out of touch with the Jamaican people?

Good governance must mean that you know how the majority of your people will respond to your policy decisions, taking into account the low level of education you provide them, and fundamentalist religious and other views. The Government is looking quite inept at the moment.

I have never been comfortable with the Government’s mantra of balancing lives and livelihoods, which seems to put money and people on the same level. Is it ethical to offset the livelihoods of some with the lives of others? It is morally sound to buy economic growth with Jamaican blood? What kind of balance is that?

I suppose it is OK if it is your livelihood and not your life.

NOT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE

It is a fundamental principle in ethics that the end does not justify the means. It simply is not morally acceptable to seek to stimulate the economy at the cost of human lives, especially the lives of the most vulnerable (the aged, and those with comorbidities). If you value human life more than money, then you will prefer a drop in your standard of living to the deaths of your relatives and friends, or even of those you do not know.

I wish the Government would drop the moral compromise of “balancing lives and livelihoods”, which ultimately means planning that people will die.

And the moral compromise of “balancing the environment and development”, which ultimately means planning environmental destruction. Choose sustainable development instead.

It seems that the Government has no strategy to fight violent and lethal crime other than “preventative detention”, where “persons of interest” (against whom they can find no hard evidence) are locked up indefinitely. The Gleaner is correct in its editorial of August 18 to label this as a failure of policy. The moral compromise of trading the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens for national security ultimately means that some must suffer so that others will feel secure.

Compromising on morality can never be right.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com