Can an either/or choice ever be wrong? Yes! When the choice is not truly either/or but we pretend it is. When done, we create a fallacy called a “false alternative”. This fallacy can destroy public debate and lead to all kinds of problems if moral commandments are involved.
False Alternatives
An alternative implies an either/or condition – a condition in which you can select one and only one option. The very nature of the thing prevents a more nuanced choice. For example, when I buy a car, I have to select between the various manufactures – Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota, etc. There are no half Ford, half Toyota cars. It’s either Ford or Toyota.
A false alternative occurs when a nuanced choice is possible, but the debate is framed as if the choices are limited and discrete. For example, saying you can have coffee or milk, but pretending that a combination of both is impossible (cappuccino lovers be damned). Framing the decision like that is fallacious. Coffee and milk drinkers can safely mix and match their beverage choices, adding milk to coffee or adding coffee to milk. Or arguing for coffee or tea. Well, recipes for mixing them exist as well.
Pandemic Alternatives
Unfortunately, I see a false alternative playing out on social media lately. Due to the lock downs, stay-at-home orders, and restrictions on travel, congregating, and social interaction, a growing condemnation movement is sweeping the nation. This movement adopts a moral authoritative stance to support their sweeping claims. While variations of this condemnation exist, the basic form consists of presenting the choice as either accepting the necessity of a total lock-down or accepting massive death. The false alternative suggest that if you don’t except and follow the total lock-down, you are a moral monster.
Why is this a false alternative? Certainly, there is germ of trust in the statement. COVID-19 is highly contagious so any interaction with others increases the chance you catch the virus and/or spread it to others. If it spreads to a vulnerable individual, the changes of death greatly increases. BUT, interaction is just one part of the equation with many mitigating factors. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that limiting interactions is wrong or should be avoided. What I am suggesting is that people that violate stay at home or lockdown orders are not necessarily moral monsters that should e condemned. Why do I make such a claim, because we are individuals with different circumstances and risk levels. In other words, context matters.
For example, I live in a county with 180,000 residents. As of today, we have 35 confirmed cases. Let’s assume a worst case scenario and that there are 10x that number of unconfirmed cases. That puts the total number of cases around 350. That’s approximately .2% of the population. 1 in every 500. Of those 350, its unclear how contagious they are or if they are currently self-isolating or under quarantine.
People with the virus but asymptomatic will not likely to be coughing particles of the virus in the air, there’s some danger, but even most experts are unsure how much. Individual with symptoms, but staying home, are not spreading the virus directly either. Certainly they could be spreading to family members who then spread to others. But again, we don’t know much about if and how rigorous they are protecting themselves and others. Are they washing their hands thoroughly and often? Are they using disinfectant wipes to clean every surface whenever they interact with others?
All of this is to say, the risk of catching the virus is low in my county, RIGHT NOW. There are some counties next to us that have no confirmed cases. Risk of catching the virus in those counties if very low.
Do those counties need a total lock-down? Perhaps not yet. Doing so now could create extremely economic, social, and personal problems for the inhabitants with little to nothing to gain from it.
But what about…?
Am I being naive? While I present a logical argument, many people do not act logical. As Terry Goodkind stated in Wizard’s First Rule:
“People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true”.
Terry Goodkind
If most people think they are low risk, won’t they all act stupidly, enabling the exponential growth of the virus to proceed uninhibited? Will these “stupid” people make it impossible for even very responsible and cautious individuals to avoid it? Don’t we need to force all people to stay home because a those bad apples? If we make exceptions for rational people, won’t that just embolden the irrational, stupid people? Perhaps!
I’m even willing to concede that in times of emergency, such as wars and pandemics, the government may put some restrictions on individual liberties while the emergency lasts.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that its a false alternative to say “it’s either total lock-down or certain massive death.”
Other alternatives exist.
Total lock-down is not the only solution. Other solutions include massive testing and strict quarantine for positive cases only. Evidence of such an approach in South Korea showed how it can stop the spread significantly. While some might question the violation of privacy the South Korean government demanded, many may consider it better than the violation to our freedom of movement.
Some governments choose selective stay-at-home orders for vulnerable populations or high risk areas. By letting the virus run its course in non-vulnerable populations, the population as a whole develops herd immunity protecting the vulnerable. Governments such as Sweden have followed this approach, although its too early to tell if this approach is working.
Instead of taking a policy action, education on protecting against infections helps too. The CDC already recommends washing hands thoroughly and often. Cleaning products with at least 60% rubbing alcohol are effective at killing the virus. Face masks have shown limited ability to help protect against the spread.
Take away
Just because our government requires something, doesn’t make it the only or right decision. One of the great things about having freedom of speech is that we all can dispute such policies and argue for something better. As citizens, we should challenge false alternatives and seek policies that best protects us while allowing us the greatest freedoms. We should not lock ourselves into our homes only to destroy our economy if a better solution may be available. How can we be sure, but trying different things, testing them, and following the evidence. Creating moral commandments that one “solution” is the only moral solution, ends up hurting us.
Let’s avoid the false alternatives and instead continue to innovate toward solution.