Morality, Religion and Humanism

Organized religion is a powerful force in the world.  It plays a major role in culture and politics as well as serving as a critical source of comfort and strength for much of humankind.  Its rituals, spirit of community and cultural expressions are interwoven tightly into the human experience.  Religion and its spiritual associations provide solace in a world that is both mysterious and unsettling.

In this modern age, a growing number of people have become unaffiliated with formal religion.  They may retain some of the cultural trappings of the religion of their ancestors, but they no longer subscribe to the doctrine and the exclusive dogma that most religions demand of their congregants.  Many describe themselves as agnostics, with a vague and ambiguous sense of the spiritual realm and a reluctance to embrace any rigid theology.  A substantial number are outright atheists.

 

A basic tenet of those who continue to strictly practice formal religion is that the moral and ethical development of civilization has been shepherded by religious thought and faith.  Consequently, they fear that the slow but steady secularization of society and an increasingly agnostic or atheistic population will cause the world to fall into a death spiral of immorality and corruption.

 

This view deserves careful examination, as it is a primary motivation for a significant part of the culture war that currently divides our society.  There are several questions that must be answered:

 

• What is the definition of morality? 
• Who or what defines morality?
• Is morality an absolute?
• Is religion necessary for moral behavior? 
• Are non-religious societies less moral?

 

My objective in questioning the role of religion in defining human morality and ethics is not to downplay or denigrate the importance or value of spirituality in our lives.  I believe that many aspects of religion are very valuable and nurturing for the human condition.  However, the exclusive nature of the world’s religions, their claims to absolute truth and their inability to recognize and adapt to nuance, ambiguity and change, are the basis of many of the world’s conflicts.

 

What is the Definition of Morality?  How does it differ from ethics?

One definition is that morality is a code of behavior relating to right and wrong.  There is great debate on the difference between morality and ethics.  Some maintain that ethics is a set of practical rules that may or may not relate to any absolute morality.  But the two are certainly closely related.  If one is behaving ethically, then typically one may assume that one is also exhibiting moral behavior.

But the question of what to include under either morality or ethics is not so clear and has evolved over the millennia.  If one considers the most common examples of potentially immoral behavior – murder/assault, stealing, lying, sexual improprieties – it is already apparent that defining immoral behavior is no easy task.  Is all murder or assault immoral?  Is bombing a city in wartime immoral?  Is defending oneself in a violent encounter immoral?

And what about lying?  Is telling the truth always a moral act?  Is a white lie permissible?  Stealing is not easy to define either.  Is taking advantage of people to get their hard-earned money immoral, or simply unethical?  Is stealing land from people who have inhabited it for years immoral, even if it is “legal”?  Is stealing to support a starving family immoral?

The morality of sexual behavior is also complicated.  Is premarital sex immoral?  Is gay sex immoral?  How about pornography?

There are many things that were once deemed immoral and even cause for capital punishment in days gone by – blasphemy and apostasy (still considered punishable by death in certain Muslim countries), making oaths, worshiping other Gods or images, insulting one’s parents, violating the sabbath, etc. – that are no longer considered immoral in most of the world.  Moreover, some things that are viewed today as highly immoral, such as slavery and the total subjugation of women, were considered perfectly acceptable in the past.  This brings us to the big question:

Who or What Defines Morality?

To ancient peoples morality was handed down by a deity – stone tablets, the Torah, the New Testament, the Koran,  the Vedas – though in some cases it was more humanistic in its origins – Confucianism and Buddhism are examples.  To many religious people, morality is still precisely defined by their religious beliefs and they look to their creeds and sacred texts to find answers to questions of morality.

But to many modern thinkers and an ever-increasing part of the modern world, morality is perceived as a product of human thought and evolution.  Morality is seen as a set of principles that enable human beings to create a better society and a more just community, and to minimize the pain and suffering in the world.

No stone tablet ever said that slavery was immoral or evil, yet human consciousness has evolved to condemn it.  No ancient creed celebrated the basic equality of all human beings and encouraged equal treatment of men and women, but the world is slowly adapting its moral compass to those principles.  The ancient texts celebrated conquest and domination in the name of religious fervor and conversion, but our modern sensibilities are ever more distant from that type of thinking.

Thus, we see that morality is defined and also refined through both religious and humanistic means.  The evolution of our moral sensibilities is ongoing and may be motivated by both sources of inspiration, but I would argue that humanism is now the dominant underlying principle.

Is Morality Absolute?

The earlier examples of the murky nature of stealing, killing, lying and other potentially immoral acts are testament to the fact that like many of life’s puzzles, morality is indeed not an absolute.  One person’s stealing is another’s good business deal.  One person’s murder is another’s patriotic duty.  One person’s lie is another’s kind gesture.

A common critique of humanism is that it promotes ‘moral relativism’.  There may be some truth to this, in that humanism is reluctant to make absolute declarations about morality.  But any rigorous exploration of moral questions will certainly find that there are a lot of gray areas in human behavior, and that for every general category of potentially immoral acts there is a spectrum of choices that must be individually analyzed to determine right or wrong.  In my view humanists are not at all hesitant to strongly condemn immoral behavior, rather they are merely unwilling to generalize and over-simplify the task.

Is Religion Necessary for Moral Behavior?

This is an interesting question.  Is religion, or at least some sort of spiritual impulse, the basis for our moral development?  Did religion create moral thinking, or did humans create religion as a means to apply moral thinking to their world?  These questions are impossible to answer definitively.

But I would argue that the last two hundred years have demonstrated a humanistic divergence from ancient religious cultures and have produced a more moral and humane world.  Some of these advancements have been led at least in part by religiously-inspired people to be sure – the slavery abolition movement, the social justice movements, the workers’ rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay and LGBTQ movements, the anti-war movements, the anti-torture movements, the anti-colonial movements.  But religious people were also prominent in opposing all of these changes in society.

I have argued in the past that there is evidence that some sort of basic spiritual impulse guides our ‘humanistic’ morality. (https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2015/04/conscience-morality-and-argument-for.html) But have our ‘religions’, i.e. the institutions, dogmas and doctrines from hundreds or even thousands of years ago, outlived their usefulness in dictating our definitions of morality?  If we liberate ourselves from them, do we risk a moral collapse?

Are Non-Religious Societies Less Moral?

How do we inculcate morality in our citizens?  Is religious instruction an essential part of that process?  Does religious belief and/or attendance play an important role?  If we abandon religion as the primary instructive tool, then with what do we replace it?

We have an ongoing experiment in non-religious societies.  Western Europe is substantially non-religious, as are significant portions of the USA.  People in these areas are not necessarily atheists and may still have a belief in some sort of spirituality or deity, but they are generally not attending church and are definitely not dogmatic in their application of religious laws.  However, Europe still provides religious education and moral instruction in schools and many parents continue to have their children achieve basic religious milestones.

These European nations are certainly not experiencing a rapid decay of morality.  Murder, violence, corruption, robbery and other acts that one generally considers signs of moral collapse are actually much less of a problem in Europe than here in the United States.

The only danger in a non-religious approach to morality is the same danger that the general recognition of ambiguity and mystery in the world brings:  The risk of every person coming up with their own morality, their own worldview, their own set of ethics.  Parents and teachers may give children guidelines, but in the end, there are no absolutes.

But outside of sexual morality, was religious morality ever any more capable of clarifying moral choices than what we have in a non-religious setting?  What religious text actually explored in detail the questions of right and wrong in business ethics, in warfare, in investments, in ecology, in politics, in government?  Haven't people, even very religious people, always found a way to justify their actions?

The goal of imbuing people with a strong moral character is not achieved by a set of rules, whether religious or humanistic.  It is accomplished by teaching empathy, humility and a strong sense of justice and fairness.  Every human being is faced with the challenge of reconciling their own interests and desires with those of the community.  It is in this final frontier of morality that the battle will be fought in the future.  It is, in the final analysis, the full development of humanconscience.

If we are facing an onslaught of moral relativism, it is not because we have abandoned our religious dogma, but rather because the human race is finally confronting the complex nature of the human condition and its social, political and economic implications.  A tablet of ten commandments is not going to solve that problem.  But I believe the spirit of humanity (whether divinely guided or not) will continue to evolve and will help us find our way.

 

 

 

 

History, Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project

The recent controversies over Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project of the New York Times call into question how we interpret history and how it is best portrayed to students at various times in their education.

What is history?  Is it a set of events?  Merriam-Webster defines history as ‘a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes’. Is history subjective?  Can there be a truly objective analysis of history?

Any historical period has an infinite number of events.  The very act of choosing which events to list in an historical account is already an ‘interpretation’ of history, a subjective view.  Moreover, a mere list of chronological events does little to help one understand what actually occurred during an historical period.  The historian is not a chronicler, but rather an interpreter, an analyst.  It is the job of every true historian to attempt to comprehend the underlying significance of events, to depict the mood, the atmosphere, the Zeitgeist that influences and motivates human activity

Long ago societies recorded their history by creating myths and heroic sagas for the purpose of indoctrinating their young in a specific way to serve the community.  Accurate depictions and analysis were neither desired nor attempted. 

Modern historical accounting has evolved over the last couple of centuries as an ever-increasing volume of information, letters, documents, etc. has become available for analysis.  The way that history is recounted also evolves as society’s consciousness evolves.  Our perceptions of conquest, enslavement, colonization, exploration, religion, science, economic growth and other components of history have undergone significant changes.  Those changes impact our interpretation of history and cause us to take a closer look at events and relationships that may have seemed less significant to earlier historians.

For example, the history of the American colonial period was, for much of our nation’s existence, portrayed in terms of the development of the economic and political evolution of the white colonists, with occasional references to Native American hostilities.  The virtual annihilation of the Native American people and culture, which in modern terms could easily be categorized as genocide, was not deemed historically significant.

Now one can argue that the virtual annihilation of the indigenous people by the colonizers was no different or more heinous than what had been done by conquering nations throughout history up to that point.  But to argue that this aspect of our nation’s history should not be studied in more detail is a call to whitewash history.

The same is true for the analysis of slavery and all its ramifications.  There is certainly no doubt that slavery has had tentacles throughout our country’s development and played a major role in many if not most of the major events.  The goal of the NY Times 1619 project – ‘to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country’ – is a worthy exercise in historical analysis.  Should it become the primary means of viewing the nation’s history?  Should it take precedence over other analyses that focus on the development of concepts of liberty, freedom and equality?  No, and there is no danger that it would.  History is much too complex to be viewed through a single lens.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is too complex for a full discussion here.  The objective of CRT is to identify systemic aspects of racism (i.e. laws, policies and other institutional implementations of racism - intended or unintended) that have impacted the plight of African Americans. 

Critics complain that CRT’s goal is to portray everyone as racist, but that is not the case.  If we truly want to address the problem of race in America, then we need to identify the remaining institutional barriers to African American progress and eliminate them.  For example, the fact that education budgets in the USA are locally funded is effectively a racist policy because we continue to have segregated communities and black communities are significantly poorer than white communities.

If our civilization is to continue to progress, then it must be honest with itself about both its successes and its failures, its heroism and its villainy.  We know that our ancestors had a different level of social consciousness and morality than we have today.  Many of their actions were deplorable.  But they also made possible the more enlightened and peaceful world we live in today.  Humanity was and still is full of contradictions.

The objective of a critical analysis of America’s history is not to drag its name in the mud or slander its favorite sons, though recognizing our forefathers as all-too-human and taking them down off their pedestals is a very healthy thing to do.  No one wants to make our children into America-haters.  But how are we to continue to form a more perfect union if we cannot acknowledge both the good and the bad of what has transpired?

History’s role is neither to glorify nor to condemn.  Its role is to understand!  The history we teach to our children and indeed, the history that we learn as adults, must help us identify the best way forward for our society.  This can only be done with a sober, clear-eyed approach that offers a multiplicity of views and interpretations for us to consider.

Investment Ethics - What is True Capitalism?

Capitalism is the economic engine of the world.  There is no denying that fact.  Of course, there are significant parts of every economy that are part of the ‘state’ and therefore not subject to private investment and management, but the true driving force is capitalism.

Here is my simple description of how capitalism works in its pure form: 

•  An entrepreneur with a dream or idea starts a company
• People invest in the company and become part-owners because they believe that the company will grow, create ‘value’ and become profitable
• People work for the company for wages based on the market value of their labor
• The investors receive some portion of the profits (dividends) based on their share of ownership
• The value of the shares of ownership grow or decline based on the current profitability of the company and the market perception of its future potential for growth.

In an ideal world, that is how capitalism and investment would work.  In theory, our goals as investors should be to encourage the creation of jobs and valuable work output (i.e. value creation) in our society and benefit when those goals are achieved.  If the company does well, then all the investors should benefit.  If it fails, then all should face the consequences.

But investment is often independent of, and even at odds with what I would call the ‘capitalist spirit of creating value’.  Investment is more like gambling.  Most people are perfectly happy to make money regardless of the success or failure of the company in which their investment lies. 

Examples of this are numerous:  the short sellers are the most egregious example.  When short sellers make a profit off the failure of a company, they are not benefiting from any sort of ‘value creation’, which is the whole purpose of capitalism.  On the contrary, they are simply taking money from other people who are not aware of the impending decline of the investment.

Trading in investments like bitcoin is another example.  There are many investments that produce no identifiable value, or dramatically exaggerate value in order to produce a FOMO (fear of missing out) in potential investors. These investments are the equivalent of a casino.  The casino mentality is a ‘get-rich-quick’ mentality, typically at the expense of others who are getting-poor-quick!  And sadly, most people are perfectly happy to obtain money in this fashion.

When there is no value creation – no new products or services created and providing value to the world – the investment game is zero sum.  For every winner there must be a loser.  One can argue that the poor schmucks who lose are themselves to blame for their losses, but this is certainly not an ethical stance.

Perhaps I am being puritanical here. I have never enjoyed gambling and I find no pleasure in ‘winning’ when my winning means that others must lose.  I never buy lottery tickets and Las Vegas is the last place I would choose to go for a vacation!

Interestingly, real estate is also somewhat of a strange investment.  No ‘new’ value is being created in property or housing as these assets age.  In theory, their value should be a constant, adjusted only by inflation.  Yet real estate has been the path to riches for many people simply because of the laws of supply and demand, and the relative scarcity of real estate in desirable locations as populations grow.  In my view, real estate investors are also parasitic, increasing their wealth at the expense of others.  Another case of the haves screwing the have nots.

And finally, to firmly cement my contrarian views, I will condemn the entire financial services industry for its absurdly high salaries and commissions.  How much value they actually create requires a fairly complex analysis that I am not able to conduct.  But if I were a betting man (and clearly I am not!) then I would bet a large part of my wealth that their added value (which is a service) is a tiny fraction of the trillions that they skim off of financial transactions.  One has only to view the list of the world’s wealthiest people to see how many are hedge fund managers, bond traders, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and other types of so-called financial wizards to realize that they have substantially rigged the game in their favor.

Investment is generally a good thing for everyone.  But it is also clear that the wealthier one is, the more one may benefit from investment.  Access to information, often 'insider' in nature, and opportunities to invest in higher yield investment options are available much more frequently to the wealthy.

The world’s capitalist economy is complex and unjust in many ways.  Alas, there is no simple way to fix it.  Revolutionary doctrines and socioeconomic models have been spectacular failures.  So, we keep plodding along with capitalism and try to make it as humane as possible.  But perhaps if people could feel ethically compelled to make investment choices that truly add value to the world rather than simply enrich themselves, then capitalism would improve significantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Brutality of Nature

When I read the very intriguing book ‘The Life of Pi’, I was shocked when the author suggested that animals in zoos were not to be pitied.  He pointed out that an animal’s life is one of constant stress, always in danger of either starvation or becoming another animal’s dinner.  The zoo offered a refuge and relief from never ending anxiety, though at a price of some level of boredom perhaps.

We celebrate nature and revel in its wildness.  The natural world is beautiful and fascinating, but it is also brutal.  I have to look away when a nature film captures the hunting and ultimate killing of a young gazelle by a lion or the gruesome envenomation and subsequent swallowing of a small rodent by a rattlesnake.  These are very natural events, but they are difficult to watch.

Nature is not necessarily cruel, but it is violent and merciless.  Normal hunting for food is vicious, but there is an understandable survival instinct behind it.  Other animal behaviors that seem to border on cruelty, such as cats toying with their victims, deadly territorial battles between members of the same species, adults murdering the young of other families (and sometimes even their own), and other seemingly malevolent acts, can all be characterized as behaviors dictated by the idiosyncrasies of evolution.  However, I cannot help but suspect that there are random, more savage variations in the animal kingdom not unlike human psychopaths and sadists.

Almost all animals are potential prey for some other animal, which must make one’s daily rounds anything but tranquil.  The so-called apex predators, who sit at the top, have only humans to fear, but that does not make their life a bed of roses.  Starvation is always looming, and there are also the often-violent territorial disputes to give one pause.

Fortunately, animals seem to be indifferent to philosophical reflection, so their life of constant anxiety doesn’t appear to lead to severe depression.  And one does see occasional bouts of playfulness and fun in some species, so perhaps there is some joy in being an animal other than the pleasure of fulfilling basic needs.

Many animals are herbivores or omnivores who obtain all or some portion of their nutrition from plants.  Herbivores are only cruel to plants and that seems less objectionable to our human sensibilities.  Plants seem unlikely to be stricken by fear or pain, though there is some evidence that complex plant groups, such as old growth forests, have more sensations than we realize.

Having had to claw our way up the food chain over the eons, it is only ‘natural’ that we human beings have a bit of the wild animal remaining in us.  We kill and maim, we fight over territory (and many other things, for that matter) and we do whatever is necessary to survive. Are we destined to murder one another for all eternity? 

We dare to envision a world where human beings live in harmony, where war and crime have vanished from the earth.  We are closer to that vision today than any time in history and have, to a great extent, ceased celebrating violence and conquest as an acceptable pastime.  We do not appear to be condemned to endless savagery.  We can rise above it.

But the natural world will never cease to be violent.  Brutality will continue to rule the savannah, the jungle and the forest, and even the nooks and crannies of our houses and gardens.  We cannot insist on a truce in the animal world, however appealing that thought might be.  We have no choice but to accept animals eating other animals as a fact of life.  We must rationalize the pain and anguish it inflicts as a necessary mechanism of nature and of life.   However, the human achievement of peace and harmony is something that could, in theory, come to pass, and it is a noble goal for humankind.  If it should ever occur, it will indeed be a ‘supernatural’ feat.  And perhaps we could even indulge in some claims of exceptionalism!

The Joys and Sorrows of Cynicism

I occasionally succumb to the temptation of cynicism.  There is a kind of delicious thrill in heaping scorn on the whole human enterprise.  Sometimes the hypocrisy, the pretensions, the duplicity, and all the contradictions are simply too glaring to ignore.  So, I shed all my idealism and most of my empathy and indulge my darker, more mischievous side.

I truly want to believe in the potential nobility of humankind, but it is often damn hard to discern among the pettiness and bad faith that one sees everywhere, and that often prevails in human affairs.  And there is something cathartic in allowing one’s cynical side to revel in the sheer absurdity of it all.  It purges one’s soul.

These bouts of cynicism are also born of a certain ennui or boredom.  I grow weary of the same conversations, the same topics - the vacation chronicles, the weather updates, the golf and fishing escapades, the stock market, the retirement plans.  The challenge of cleverly lampooning our sad, mediocre existences provides stimulating entertainment for a while.

But cynicism is a double-edged sword.  Its intoxication is short-lived and if indulged too long will eventually transform itself into a hangover of an even deeper despair.  The witty skewering of the world ultimately becomes a self-indictment.  It can paint oneself into a corner where philosophical escape is difficult.

So, beware the joys of cynicism, for the sorrows will surely follow, as night follows day.  It is best to sip from the cup rather than take long draughts.  Being a cynic is a lovely caprice, but making a career of it is bound to lead down a very dark path.

The Gordian Knot of Crime, Guns and Police

We are facing a long-delayed reckoning in America.  We have observed the ceaseless saga of drugs, crime, increased incarceration, police militarization and over-policing from the safety of our protected neighborhoods.  We know that something is terribly wrong, but we haven’t the will to demand change, because, for us, it is an abstraction that doesn’t really impact us.

In recent years, the videos of unarmed black men and women being killed by police have launched the BLM movement and sparked efforts to reconsider the style of policing prevalent in our country.  But there are stark partisan differences in opinions on these efforts.  Conservatives view the BLM movement very negatively and claim that it has resulted in police being hesitant to perform their duties and therefore caused higher levels of crime and violence.

It is evident that policing in neighborhoods of color has become a warlike activity.  Police and conservatives claim that the increased crime rate and omni-presence of guns in these areas requires hyper-vigilance and a different set of behaviors than ordinary policing.  Civil rights groups and liberals believe that there is systemic racism throughout the police force and that profiling and uber-aggressive policing are key factors in the escalation of force and violence.

While it is clear that policing in America needs to be re-evaluated to address such things as racial profiling, unprovoked stops and overly aggressive reactions to non-threatening situations, there is much, much more to this escalating problem than police reform.

America is beset by a tangled web of societal problems, not just policing problems.  The combination of poverty, joblessness, broken families and schools, drugs and guns has created a volatile mixture in most of urban America and threatens to extend its reach into suburban and rural America as well.  The COVID pandemic has exacerbated these problems even further.

Is there more crime in neighborhoods of color? Is policing a dangerous job in those areas?  Perhaps so.  But is the solution to simply increase police presence and level of force and put more people in prison?  Of course not!  That only creates a vicious cycle that will eventually result in widespread civic chaos and a societal death spiral.

The Gordian Knot of declining civil stability is not hard to describe.  Impoverished single parent families lose their children to the streets at an early age.  The schools are broken and ineffective.  Drugs and guns are everywhere.  Jobs are at best menial and low-paid, and often unavailable, especially after one has a criminal record.  Crime, especially drug and gang-related, is rampant and seductive, as it offers a much higher return on time invested than any other activity.  Men who cycle in and out of prison abandon families and are surrounded by other men traveling similar hopeless paths.

Conservatives bemoan these characteristics and somehow draw the conclusion that people of color have only themselves to blame for their own cultural degradation.  They continue to believe that the solution is for our society to severely limit any assistance so that ‘these people’ will be forced to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and correct their flaws and criminality.

But the problem has steadily escalated for more than 60 years, through both conservative and liberal political administrations.  It is not going away.  Indeed, it is at a crisis point and threatens to unravel our society.

The details of a solution are not easy to discern.  But what is obvious is that some steps must be made, or we will face increasing unrest in our society.  Here are the steps that I believe would begin to positively impact the situation:

• Change drug laws to minimize police activity around drugs, eliminate sentences for usage, drastically reduce it for selling unless a weapon is involved
• Dramatically increase drug rehab and counseling programs – treat drugs as a social problem rather than a crime
• Police should be trained more extensively on defusing tense situations and avoiding physical altercations whenever possible
• Create a national jobs program for people with criminal records and require their participation when they are released from prison.
• Outlaw all possession of guns outside the home unless hunting or target shooting in approved facilities.  Use random searches with severe consequences to enforce this.  Yes, I know this has the potential to amplify racial profiling problems, but it is the only way to transition to a safer policing environment, which is the sine qua non for reducing police brutality.  And yes, I know the old trope that says when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, but I am quite certain that is a fallacious argument against stricter control.
• Invest energetically in schools in poor areas, including pre-kindergarten, day care and after school programs.  Ramp up youth programs. Get kids off the street.
• End the practice of police performing traffic stops.  Use technology to capture speeding, stoplight running and other traffic violations, and allow police to notify drivers electronically if their lights aren’t working or if their tags are not up to date. 

It will take time for these changes to make a big difference, but there is really no alternative.  We are putting band aids on a festering wound that will kill us if no other treatment is initiated.  The Gordian Knot of our legacy of slavery and neglect will not be solved by a simple blow of the sword as Alexander the Great is purported to have done.  It will require a careful untying of all the many strands.

 

 

Vaccine Ethics

There is no starker example of inequity in the world than the rollout of the COVID vaccine.  It was easy to predict.  Richer nations were always going to be vaccinated first. Was there ever a chance to make vaccine access more equitable?  How much will this unequal access affect the further evolution of the pandemic and the death toll?

The development of the COVID vaccine itself has been an amazing and inspirational case of international cooperation and organizational efficiency.  The vaccines currently being distributed across the world – Moderna, Pfizer, Astrazeneca, Sputnik and Sinovac – were developed in a space of time previously considered impossible for vaccines.  The world can truly be proud of this accomplishment.  As in all things, the motivations were a mix of noble, intellectual and monetary ambitions, but the overall result is simply wonderful and incredible.

In early-2020, at the start of the pandemic, efforts to coordinate international cooperation on testing, treatment and vaccine research, and ultimately develop vaccines were initiated by the G-20 through the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator and a Call to Action was published by the World Health Organization (WHO).  One of the 3 pillars of this effort was COVAX, a public/private cooperation to ensure distribution of COVID vaccine to low and middle income countries.

The USA, under the Trump administration, had severed ties and support with the WHO and stated in September, 2020 that it would not support COVAX.  Thus, the USA did not participate in this effort until early this year (2021), when the new Biden administration rejoined the WHO and committed support and funding to COVAX.  The USA has now made a larger funding commitment to COVAX than any other country ($4B), which is certainly the way it should be, considering that the USA is the wealthiest country in the world.

As of the middle of April, 2021, COVAX had only delivered 39 million vaccines doses, falling short of its goal of distributing 100 million by the end of March.  It is likely that the rate of distribution will increase dramatically once the USA and the EU have reduced their caseloads and hospitalizations to a ‘manageable’ level. Hopefully this will occur by mid-summer.  Moderna has now committed to providing 500 million doses to developing countries starting in the 4^th quarter of this year.

The Biden administration has focused most of its effort on vaccinating US citizens, but has just announced that it will send all of its Astrazeneca inventory, some 60 million doses, to low and middle income countries in the next several months.

China and Russia have developed vaccines and have negotiated distribution deals with some developing nations independently.  There is speculation among western nations that China and Russia will use these relationships in a quid pro quo manner to obtain special status in trade or military alliances. 

The moral and ethical questions regarding vaccine distribution are challenging.  Every country’s government is by its definition responsible first and foremost for the welfare of its own citizens.  Its generosity toward other nations and the world in general is secondary, though where that line is drawn varies significantly in different nations.  This difference in perspective from an individual’s decision to share with or help others is part of the moral dilemma that society faces – the moral man, immoral society dichotomy.

The failure of the wealthier countries to share the vaccine with developing nations is certainly distressing, but it is not surprising.  There is some logic to it.  One could perhaps use the analogy of the airplane instruction for people to put their own oxygen masks on before assisting others. This may sound paternalistic, but it reflects the difficult decision-making process in the real world.

This analogy breaks down somewhat as vaccine distribution is not a binary decision.  Perhaps a greater amount of vaccine distribution to developing nations could have been done without much adverse effect on the USA and the EU.  But an argument can be made that the overall effort to stop the contagion is more likely to be successful if the wealthier countries get their outbreaks under control as quickly as possible and then focus on providing aid to other nations. 

Observing the current state of the COVID pandemic, it is clear that certain developing countries are indeed struggling and in desperate need of the vaccine, particularly Latin American countries.  If one measures the relative mortality impact by the statistic deaths/million, then Brazil (1901), Peru (1853) and possibly Mexico (1670, but likely inaccurate) have had worse fatality rates than the USA (1776).

The highest deaths/million are generally in the developed nations, extending from the USA to the EU, especially the eastern European countries.  African countries have so far evaded the worst of the pandemic, a mystery that has baffled epidemiologists.  South Africa (908) and Tunisia (907), the worst hit, are still only at half the USA fatality rate. Most African nations are below 100!  A delay in vaccine distribution to those countries could allow the contagion to take root, but at this point there does not seem to be a desperate need.

And Asian countries have generally been quite resilient and effective in their management of the contagion, with no countries in the top 100 for fatality rate!  India and the Philippines are both at 157, though India is currently experiencing a very dramatic and tragic outbreak.

In my assessment, even if the vaccine distribution is currently unfair and monopolized by the wealthier nations, the long-term consequences may not be that catastrophic.  One might even be able to successfully argue that the current distribution of vaccine will result in saving the most lives across the world.  This is, of course, not out of design.  The wealthy nations would be hoarding and selfishly focusing on their own needs even if the contagion were rampant in other parts of the world.  But fortunately, that is not the case!