Government-ordered COVID-19 lockdowns are actually unethical, and here’s why

Government-ordered COVID-19 lockdowns are actually unethical, and here’s why

By James Sikkema Assistant Professor, Philosophy, McMaster University

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has invited government and public health officials to issue lockdowns and stay-at-home orders globally. But these lockdown orders are not justified. Consequently, there is no moral obligation to obey them.

After the SARS and H1N1 epidemics, the Public Health Agency of Canada drafted the Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (CPIP) guide. Although the guide was not implemented, it nevertheless maintains that:

… when considering restrictive measures, it is important to balance respect for autonomy against protection of overall population health. In such situations, the principles of proportionality, reciprocity and flexibility are involved, with a view to safeguarding individual freedom to the extent possible while promoting protection against the health and societal consequences of influenza infection.

I understand this to mean that justification for state-sanctioned paternalism to promote public health is possible. What provides actual justification, however, depends on the equitable balance of benefits over harms such paternalistic measures are able to achieve. There is a philosophical argument to be made that lockdown measures essentially do not — indeed, cannot — achieve this balance.