Correct. If an able bodied person is at risk, it is up to them to build a bubble around themselves to protect themselves. If a disabled individual requires protection, it is up to society to build a bubble around that person to protect them, not build a bubble around everyone else, restrict their freedoms and handicap society to protect the weak.So, if I am understanding you properly, it is not our responsibility to wear a mask or take preventative measures to protect those who might be more susceptible to a reduction in lifespan?
There is a very noisy minority in the US that would agree with that. The rest of the US is busy working, being productive and are not pay enough attention to the direction the country is being pushed in by this whiny minority of well intentioned individuals that do not understand that the vast majority of people that they are trying to protected are experiencing the decline in health due to self neglect and abuse, not because of something that "happened to them". In the vast majority of cases it happened because of them.There are definitely plenty of moral systems that would support this but, at least in the US, that type of behavior isn't typically condoned.
I agree with almost everything Jordan Peterson has to say. This is the one thing I strongly disagree with him on. His belief is that all life has value (which I agree with) and that the more people we have around the better as there are more people around to solve the problems we have. The problem I see with that thinking is that it is a perpetual loop. X number of people will present Y number of problems. Having 2X people may solve the Y number of problems but 2X the people now present a completely different set of problems so the answer now becomes having 4X the people? Then eventually the answer becomes elon musk and Mars? You do realize that there is no way 7 billion people are leaving earth, right? The concept of Mars (or another solution involving abonnement of earth and the mess here) is a potential continuation of human kind but is a dead end for essentially everyone on earth including the weak you proport to care so much about.It does remind me of the Louis CK bit about children and allergies. If we continue to perpetuate flawed genes and keeping people alive to reproductive ages some bad things could happen before we have the technology to undo them... then again maybe one of the bedridden will have the focus and drive due to their situation to come up with the next formula or breakthrough that propels the human race forward.
At the end of the day, life is difficult and everyone wants to be saved and protected. That is what motivates most people to adopt this way of thinking. "If I protect them, they will protect me" instead of "I will be strong, contribute to society". There is a huge difference between protecting the elderly (for a few years) that contributed to building and protecting society and spending tremendous resources protecting someone for their entire lifetime. Why does it seem that everyone that advocates for the latter is usually relying on someone else to do the work?