Mr. Schweidler, this week, politicians discussed the question of when closure of schools and the retail sector could be relaxed again. Decisions of such kind require diverse considerations. Can human lives be weighed against economic growth?
Walter Schweidler: The protection of human lives must be respected fully at all times. Therefore, part of the responsibility that politicians bear is guaranteeing that doctors can fulfill their professional obligations for protecting and preserving human lives. As long as it does not come down to weighing one person’s life against another, there is no need to weigh. However, as soon as a doctor is forced to give up one person’s life for another one’s, it is impossible to base the decision on general regulations or guidelines. The responsibility for this very serious decisions lies with the doctors in charge. All the more, it is the politicians’ responsibility to ensure that these situations do not arise in the first place.
Is there still any leeway for political decisions?
Not all questions are taken out of the hands of politicians. First and foremost, it is clear that human lives must be protected in any case! If this principle is adhered to, weighing of different scenarios is possible in a second step. Here, politicians must not only take into account the view of the doctors, but also the perspectives of citizens and companies. The functioning of our social systems must be ensured and a collapse of our economy must be avoided.
The far-reaching consequences of the corona outbreak were not foreseeable in the beginning. How can the risks in such a situation be weighed appropriately?
In the end, we can only look at comparable situations. We can look at the health risks in other countries, such as Italy or the USA. Drawing on these observations, we can then assess how high the risks are for Germany or whether there are good reasons for weighing risks differently in our country. Currently, public discussion mainly focuses on the number of deaths. But we also have to take into account other risks. For example, the ensuing health risks for nursing staff. Those working in hospitals also have a right to health and physical integrity.
It has been widely criticized that the decisions taken are described as being the only possible alternative. Would other decisions have been possible?
For me, the decisive question is not whether there are any alternatives. We rather have to ask ourselves: Is the situation predictable? What facts do we know about for certain? In philosophical ethics, we differentiate between two positions in this context: Tutiorism and laxism. Tutiorism says: We only allow things that certainly do no harm. Laxism says: We allow things even if we are not sure whether they do any harm. Now that we are confronted with a global pandemic, we need to align our actions with a fundamental attitude that is based on tutiorism. If there is fundamental doubt, we need to choose the safe option. We will only be able to consider whether to re-open schools or shops little by little as we move along and gain a better understanding of the situation.
Decisions taken in the past few months have led to severe limitations of public life. How appropriate are these limitations?
A couple of days ago, people were prevented from going to their own holiday home. Although there was no immediate danger to life and limb. Of course, this is an encroachment on the fundamental right to property. Also the freedom of movement is severely restricted. I feel that these limitations are out of proportion. Furthermore, it is urgently required to create a legal framework for these limitations. It is only allowed to interfere in our fundamental rights by law. Governing by means of decrees, as we are currently witnessing, is not sufficient in this case. Fundamental rights cannot be altered by majority decisions.
Could these limitations have been avoided if the government had taken better precautionary measures?
The government can hardly be held accountable for the current situation. As far as I am aware, there is no country on earth that was adequately prepared. All were taken by surprise by the extent of the pandemic that developed in such a short time. Situations like these cannot be anticipated. Therefore, the responsibility rather lies with public finances. It will be decisive whether governments succeed in managing their budget in a way that allows reacting to unexpected situations quickly. In this field, there are differences between the countries. It has been and still is irresponsible to take on high debts on national government level and their support on the part of the central banks.
Is it justified to only look for those responsible at government level? Is it not true that also companies have to take over responsibility?
Yes. The current logics of our economy show tendencies of irresponsibility. The continuous increase in efficiency and cost-cutting endeavors have led to the fact that the production of facemasks was outsourced to China, for example. This creates dependencies. In times of crisis, such dependencies reduce our flexibility. This is why we have to go back to shorter chains of production for our products. Supply chains cannot simply follow the rules of cost optimization. It is no cliché when pointing out that that this structuring must not follow the logics of total globalization. It is much more important to keep in control of managing our resources.
The interview was conducted by Thomas Metten.
Prof. Dr. Walter Schweidler holds the Chair of Philosophy at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. In his research, he approaches questions of applied ethics in biomedicine and human dignity.
