Eugenics, the notion that the strong can kill the weak, is built on the philosophy that population reduction may have to be done for the greater good of society. It’s built on the part of Darwinian evolution called natural selection and survival of the fittest. Under this philosophy, the Nazi Holocaust was simply a moral attempt to cleanse their own society of weaker Jews “for the greater good” of society, as they Nazis might say. Why then do so many on the left today say that we have to make decisions on COVID “for the greater good”?
Now, in their defense, libs do not want another holocaust. And proportionate decisions in bio-ethics can be made under extremely limited criteria. So, let’s jump into those limited criteria to see if we can apply the notion of “the greater good” for global decisions on covid. We’ll start with non-covid examples and examples not as extreme as the holocaust.
The only time I am aware of in Catholic moral theology where one can proportionately weigh two bad outcomes in a utilitiarian manner is when the initial actions include doing no evil. For example, if a paramedic has to triage casualties in a mass casualty incident (like a terrorist event or a plane wreck) he may choose to treat certain people while refraining from treating others who are about to die. This is permitted even by classic Catholic morality since refraining from treatment of a patient is not necesssarily an immoral decision. Thus, one can proportionately weigh who is most likely to live in the initial stages of triage. This is not the same thing as eugenics for two reasons: 1) Eugenics has the intention of killing the weaker people simply because they are weak. 2) There are not limited medical resources in cases of eugenics but rather purposefully-withheld resources, unlike Mass Casualty Incidents where not everyone can be saved.
So, for example, in a low-flying plane wreck with many casualities that are not found as immediate fatalities, an overwhelmed emergency medical system in triage is unlike the earlier/above eugenics example because 1) There is no intention of killing weak people (even if they happen to die) and 2) There are usually limited medical resources in mass casuality incidents. Thus, EMS can morally triage (that is: decide) who is most likely to live in an event with dozens of casualities. Though heart-wrenching, such difficult decisions of first responders do not violate Catholic moral principles. Good triage does not fall into the moral theology errors of consequentialism or proportionalism. Even Pope John Paul II explained that consequentialism “claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice” and that proportionalism “weighs the various values and goods being sought, focuses rather on the proportion acknowledged between the good and bad effects of that choice, with a view to the ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ actually possible in a particular situation.”—Veritatis Splendor #75.
How does this apply to covid and all that the globalists are doing nearly two years after “two weeks to flatten the curve”? The first reason we should all be against the Covid-19 vaccine is it is abortion-tainted. The second is because it’s not necessary. The third reason is because it does more harm than good. (That is, this “vaccine” has already killed more than all other vaccines combined, and we’re only a year into its distrubution.)
So let’s say for the sake of argument that the C19 vaccine was safe for the unborn and actually worked on adults. Could we then take it for “the greater good”? Well, if those imaginary premises were granted, then we could indeed proportionately weigh the outcomes of worldwide serum programs only because the initial moral decisions included doing nothing evil. Even then, the amazing thing is that jabs and masks and even social distancing fail morally even under a proportionalist “greater good” appraisal. Why? Because even if the globalists had the science on their side (which they don’t) the effects on our society from such medicines and lockdowns (again, assuming they work, an imaginary premise I’m granting for the sake of argument) is still outweighed by the depression, job-loss and suicide rates that have come upon our entire globe since this panic began.
“The Greater Good” is essentially proportionality or utilitarianism. “The Greater Good” is nothing else than making decisions that benefit the majority of a population to the deficit of the minority. The ironic thing about covid is that “the greater good” has turned into a benefit for the 0.01% elite of society while becoming a health and economic detriment to the other 99.9% of society. Either way, it’s obviously an immoral system of morality. But even if it were to be granted as a valid moral system, and even if the jab and the masks were proved to be moral in and of themselves and even if they were found effective in this imaginary world I’m painting, we still could not use such items in a solid Catholic morality system to tackle a virus with a 99.92% survival rate. “The greater good” (as if that were the end-all, be-all of Catholic morality) still does not include dangerous serums and lockdowns causing suicides.
So while Catholics forgot that the end does not justify the means (the basic tenet of all moral theology) an evangelical woman on Facebook named “conservative momma” with over 200,000 followers understands the hazards of the “greater good” as she posted the following on FB last week:
Who exactly is better off?
Is it the small shop owner, who poured all they had into a business only to have it shut down?
Is it for the nurse who lost her job,because she made a personal choice on her health?
Is it for the truck driver that has already been infected, recovered, and has natural immunity- but doesn’t want what the government says he must take?
Is it the church that closed its doors to those who needed the church the most?
Is it for the woman, who is in stage four Breast cancer- because she was afraid to go the doctor to have it checked out because of the pandemic?
Is it for the child who is deaf, and reads lips, who feels isolated now more than ever?
Is it for the married couple arguing over who and what to believe through this circus act?
Is it for the the doctor stripped of his license because he dared to stand up to Big Pharma?
Is it for that mom & pop pharmacy, terrified to fill what they KNOW works?
Is it for the single mom, who doesn’t want to inject herself with something she does not want, but feels forced to -in order to keep her job?
Is it the dad that has been let go because he wouldn’t compromise his faith?
I honestly want to know who benefits from “the greater good?” ￼
Who IS the beneficiary?