Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

Any one of us could be carrying the coronavirus. By refusing to stay home, we literally run the risk of killing someone.

And yet, a lot of people—like those kids on spring break—are refusing to change their behavior.

Why?

Here's four theories.

[Thread]
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

Long ago, a single asymptomatic carrier became infamous as Typhoon Mary because of the number of people she infected.

Today, thousands of Corona Chads and Covid Catherines are roaming the streets doing their best to spike the curve.

Are they all callous monsters?

Not exactly.

There are three simple reasons why so many people are refusing to engage in social distancing—plus, one that's less obvious yet more important.

1) Honest Ignorance

2) "Rational" Selfishness

3) Lack of Concern for the Those who are Distant

4) Our Ill-Adjusted Moral Instincts

1) Honest Ignorance

If you're reading this, you probably follow news about corona pretty closely.

But many people barely watch the news. And some tune into programs that have been downplaying the threat for weeks or months.

They may simply fail to understand the moral stakes.

2) "Rational" Selfishness

Though corona has killed some young people, preliminary data suggests that they are less strongly affected by it.

For those who are far more likely to survive, it is—from a purely selfish perspective—less "irrational" to chance such social encounters.

Sidenote:

Just want to emphasize that these "rational" decisions may be based on faulty assumptions.

We are increasingly seeing reports of young people dying, only surviving because of their access to ventilators (which may soon run out), or sustaining serious lung damage.

3) Distance

Peter Singer famously compared two scenarios.

In one, you see a girl drowning in a pond as you take a walk. In another, you hear about a girl starving halfway across the world.

We *should* save both. But we're much more likely to save the girl we actually see.

Something similar might be going on with bad behavior during the corona crisis.

While the people we might kill are geographically proximate, we might neither know those we kill nor find out about the consequences of our actions.

Distance makes us unjustifiably callous.

These explanations are all relevant insofar as they go. But I don't think they can explain everything.

Students at Ivies who were throwing big parties aren't too dumb to understand what's going on.

Older people still going about their daily life don't believe that they themselves have nothing to fear.

And those kids on spring break might be putting their own loved ones at risk.

4) Our Ill-Adjusted Moral Instincts

Unlike the first three explanations, this one is not about what people know or what kind of moral sacrifices they are willing to make.

Instead, it focuses on what kind of actions we are accustomed to evaluating from a moral point of view.

Everyone knows that guns are dangerous. If I asked you to point it at a stranger’s face, you'd balk.

But we've all grown up in a world in which the decision to grab a coffee, or to meet a friend for a chat, was not freighted with deep moral significance.

No matter how dangerous it might be to defy measures at social distancing right now, it *feels* completely benign to do so.

All of us are having trouble adjusting to a world in which leaving our own house for frivolous reasons carries the risk of manslaughter.

This helps to explain why so many people have been ignoring public-health advice. But an explanation is not an excuse.

And right now, seemingly innocuous activities are the equivalent of raising a revolver—and then pulling the trigger.

So yes, it might feel perfectly normal to flout the call for social distancing every now and then.

But by following your instincts rather than your reason, you are putting yourself, your friends, and your neighbors at risk.

And that is simply unforgivable.

Please share my article @TheAtlantic.

And please, for the sake of everyone, stay the f#&k at home.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…