In his article “How Coronavirus is Shaking Up the Moral Universe”, John Authers discusses how utilitarianism could shape COVID response by highlighting Boris Johnson’s “herd immunity” strategy. Authers calls this “brutally utilitarian”, arguing that while many would die through this approach, it weighs this reality with the effects of extended recession on general well-being and happiness to create an outcome that upholds the common good. I disagree with Authers analysis here and think that it demonstrates a pervasive failing of liberal philosophy to challenge the existing system.

Auther’s suggestion that policies supporting the “herd immunity” approach could be in line with John Stuart Mills’ vision of utilitarianism disregards Mills’ other contribution to liberal philosophy, the harms principle. Through the harms principle Mills posits that the state should limit individual autonomy when the actions of that individual present risk of harm to another. While Mills argues that the risk of harm alone is not sufficient to justify limits on individual rights, this principle highlights consideration of harm as one of the central factors in shaping liberal policy. Such considerations could be used to justify mask mandates, limits on gathering, or, at this stage of COVID response, vaccine mandates for public life. Herd immunity arguments do the opposite of centering harms; it regards these potential harms to human life as less important than harms to the market. It seems strange to deem a policy like herd immunity as in line with Mills’ utilitarianism while ignoring the role that consideration of harm played in his philosophy. When valuing harms to individuals it should be ludicrous to suggest that the market should be weighed so significantly against human life.

Authers’ explanation of “herd immunity” as a utilitarian approach is based on the idea that recessions are also harmful and reduce wellbeing, including by public health metrics. This suggests that the working class and the owning class should want the same things for the market: when the economy booms all of our lives are better. In the current structure, this is somewhat true; in a recession workers have more difficulty finding a job or meeting their needs. But history suggests a more complicated relationship: any consideration of the market with imperialism or working conditions demonstrates that booming markets come with significant infringements on most workers’ quality of life. The valuing of lockdown in comparison to economic collapse highlights the inadequacy of liberal philosophers in challenging the assumptions of what is possible in the capitalist system. If the capitalist system is questioned it seems on its face ridiculous what could benefit the greatest number of people would be that that enriches the few through the exploitation of the many. It also should not be a given that if recession did occur, the many would go with their needs unmet. The reality is a variety of responses, including vastly expanded public programs are available, but unconsidered by Authers. 

Ultimately, the progress of the pandemic demonstrates the danger of suggesting market health can be a source of collective good. As the rich have made billions in the pandemic, workers have died en mass and gone into debt. This is far-reaching, there is no ‘common good’ benefits the 1% or preserves Capitalist class relations.

Works Cited

Auther, John (2020, March 20) How Coronavirus is shaping up the moral universe. The Economic Times

While I was previously familiar with Mills’ Harms Principle, I also refreshed my understanding of his concept of harm through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#HarPri