[morte-vivante]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door alpina

't is compleet waanzinnig. Alsof ge uw 4 ledematen laat amputeren omdat ge wel eens het risico zou kunnen lopen om uw dikke teen lelijk te stoten aan een tafelpoot.

Het is wel een heel interessante periode voor sociologen. Ik denk niet dat het al vaak voorgevallen is dat volledige maatschappijen in een zodanige mate verblind zijn door hysterie.

de moralisatie van de Coronamaatregelen is schrikbarend om eerlijk te zijn.

We investigated whether the moralization of health-based C19 efforts (i.e., to reduce C19 deaths and illnesses, or eliminate the virus) would generate asymmetries in the evaluation of human costs. We hypothesized that because the health impacts of C19 remain an urgent, visible, and quantifiable threat, efforts to reduce that harm would become moralized as moral mandates (Rozin, 1999; Skitka & Houston, 2001). As such, the harmful by-products inherent in combating C19's health effects would be accepted as more tolerable than identical harm resulting from efforts unrelated to C19's health effects. Predictions were overwhelmingly supported. In Study 1 participants exhibited asymmetries in their tolerance for health, social, and human rights costs; identical costs (e.g., number of deaths, online harassment, or police abuse of power) arising from health-related C19 strategies were more readily accepted than those arising from either non-health-based strategies (e.g., economic), or from other unrelated efforts. Moreover, these effects were mediated by moral outrage, supporting that elimination efforts have become moralized.

Study 2 furnished additional evidence for the moralization of C19 health-targeted efforts. Indeed, participants in NZ evaluated a research proposal as less accurate, less methodologically sound, and less valuable to society when it posited the hypothesis that the suffering resulting from continuing an elimination approach in NZ outweighed that from abandoning the approach (compared to one forwarding the reverse hypothesis). Yet, both proposals contained the same amount of empirically validated information. Moreover, Study 2 participants evaluated the researchers as less competent and were less trustful they would honor participants' donation wishes when the researchers merely posited the empirical possibility the elimination approach led to increased suffering. These patterns are congruent with extant work on sacred values (Tetlock, 2003), whereby merely opening cherished beliefs up to scrutiny evokes moral outrage and motivates individuals to further demonstrate their moral commitments. In a similar vein, Study 2 participants who read the research proposal questioning the elimination strategy espoused heightened moral commitments to an elimination approach. Altogether, these patterns support that efforts to control or eliminate C19 have become moralized, leading individuals to overlook potential collateral costs from such efforts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...report=classic

the moral language and media depictions surrounding C19 may amplify moralization, such as by activating disgust. We leave these intriguing possibilities as open questions for future research.

ge ziet dat overal op sociale media. De morele verontwaardiging als ge nog maar kritiek uit op de huidige maatregelen spreekt boekdelen. Grote delen van bevolking hebben zich, onder invloed van, laten aanpraten dat het doel (elimineren van covid) alle middelen heiligt, no matter what. Terwijl voor andere besmettelijke ziektes, zoals griep, diezelfde maatregelen moreel niet gejustifieerd worden