Calling People ‘Selfish’ Is Undermining Our Pandemic Response

If you tell people that self-interest is evil, they will tend to conclude that evil is in their self-interest.

By
95

You’ve probably heard this dozens of times since the pandemic began, and I guarantee you will hear it dozens more times before we stumble across to the other side: how “selfish” it is to ignore pandemic precautions.

Whether it’s a large family gathering, or crowding into bars, or talking loudly on a phone on the subway without wearing a mask, this behavior will be denounced as a “pandemic of selfishness.” Don’t you know that there is no “I” in “mask”?

But this casually pejorative use of “selfish” is undermining our response to the pandemic and to a great many other things. This reckless use of language has a real and significant cost. If you tell people that refusing to take the pandemic seriously is something that promotes their own personal well-being, the problem is that they just might believe you.

This is a wider moral conundrum that goes far beyond the pandemic. If you tell people that self-interest is evil, they will tend to conclude that evil is in their self-interest.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
95
By
Comments (95)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. rob

    A lot of people forget that when the pandemic was just starting last January conservatives were the first ones suggesting that 'you should start wearing a mask' and to start cutting down on unnecessary trips out. While democrats were encouraging people to go to china town, saying that masks didn't help, and saying that anyone that said otherwise was xenophobic.

    Now we know a lot more about the disease. Its NOT as deadly as we feared it was in January. Nor does it spread as quickly or as easily as we feared. There are better treatments available and if you get it you are unlikely to be reinfected.

    And yet democrats have switched completely. Democrats now force mask mandates when for instance walking alone down the street. They prevent businesses from allowing customers to eat outside. And they are doing everything they can to prevent students from going back to school even though they are unlikely to get it or spread it. They already want to force a everyone to get a vaccine that isn't even out yet. Its almost as if democrats just want to deal with this disease in the most oppressive and least effective way possible.

    The left can not 'trust' people to do what is best for themselves because they do not understand that. They only understand force because leftism is fundamentally authoritarian.

    Collapse
  2. Ahb

    Did I miss something here... I feel like you started off with a false statement. “By the same token, what is self-sacrificial about wearing a mask? If there is one precaution that the average person can take with no significant cost to himself, this is it. To be sure, there is some scientific debate about how much cloth masks help. “
    There’s overwhelming evidence that masks work.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jake

    Robert your writing has always been the most interesting stuff on the Bulwark. I look forward to more of it in the Dispatch.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    J. Eric

    Wow, what a compelling piece! Nice work. Thanks

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Dina

    The problem with this article is that it is based on a false premise: that selfish means acting in your self-interest, therefore, calling people who won't wear masks selfish will confuse them to the point that they will believe that evil is in their self interest.

    However, that is not what selfish means.

    Here is dictionary.com on selfish:

    1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
    2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:
    selfish motives.

    And I give you Merriam-Webster:

    1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
    2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
    //a selfish act

    Or if you need further confirmation, see the Cambridge Dictionary:

    Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage:
    The judge told him: "Your attitude shows a selfish disregard for others."

    Conclusion: It is entirely accurate and appropriate to apply the label of selfish to people who won't wear masks.

    If someone is going to present on argument based on one word, it is advisable to first check the definition.

    Collapse
    1. Scroop Moth

      You’re right. Ordinary masks are thought to be far less effective as personal protection than as source control. There’s little direct personal benefit. We accept the inconvenience first out of altruism and then in the hope of a social contract that will commit others to protect us by adopting the same inconvenience. When they refuse to reciprocate we should censure their selfishness — even if writers at TD criticize us.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Dina

        The CDC updated its guidelines to include the wearer in the protection masks offer. Studies have shown that people who lived in a household in which one member contracted Covid were 79% less likely to test positive for the disease if they consistently wore masks in the home during the duration of the patient's illness (if memory serves).

        One recent study out of Denmark now shows that masks do not protect the wearer; scientists argue that the data are flawed, so I would say more data are needed. However, I am confident that science will prove what common sense tells you is true: if a barrier prevents your droplets from getting out, that same barrier should protect others' droplets from getting in.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BikerChick

          Doubtful. Droplets contain virus. Droplets evaporate. Virus remains.
          https://www.aier.org/article/the-year-of-disguises/

          Collapse
  6. Nathan

    I have no idea what the point of this article is.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Silvertide

      This article is someone trying to give face to those who choose not to wear a mask because it became a political issue for nearly half the country. So instead of being honest about not wearing a mask let's blame it on the people that wear masks and say because they are calling others selfish that's the reason Trump supporters aren't wearing masks.

      Collapse
      1. StoneInstruments

        I think you got it

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      It's naive at best and totally wrong.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Tom B.

    I've come to view masking and social distancing more and more through the lens of a collective action problem, similar to a prisoner's dilemma.

    It hardly matters if I don't wear a mask, or go to the bar, or travel to a Christmas get-together. And I get good, positive, immediate, happy feedback from these actions.

    It is societally disastrous if no one wears a mask, and everyone goes to the bar and travels to a Christmas get-together. But the effects are delocalized (no individual is guaranteed a bad result) and take time to show up.

    Now clearly the right thing to do is to collectively avoid societal disaster, but since we are acting as individuals, it's very tempting to see the immediate happiness and seemingly low risk and take what are ultimately selfish actions (we may not even perceive them as such).

    Add in that these possibly unintentionally selfish actions allow me to pretend that everything is near normal and the pandemic is not a big deal . . . It's a huge temptation and a big problem.

    I'm not sure how to fix it, but I've hopes we can improve messaging and compliance with public health guidelines as vaccines are rolling out.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      jhc

      Good thought. 👍

      Now do a 'Tragedy of the commons' take. 🙂

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Yes, exactly. Well said.

      Collapse
  8. Foolscap

    For most mask scolds, the emotional satisfaction they get from expressing their moral superiority will matter more than whether they’re actually convincing anyone to wear a mask.

    Similarly, for most anti-maskers, the emotional satisfaction of thumbing their noses at the people who they think hold them in contempt will matter more than protecting their communities from the virus

    We need to find ways to take this out of the realm of moralizing and tribalism, but I’m afraid we’re too far gone.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Mudskipper

    This piece strikes me as one in which reality is bent to serve an ideology.

    First, public health officials have tried to appeal to people primarily on the basis of rational self-interest. The scolding the author is referring to primarily comes from the public.

    Second, to the extent that appeals to rational self-interest haven't been successful, it is in a large part because humans aren't rational. People are very bad at assessing relative risk. They are also bad at forgoing small short-term rewards for larger long-term rewards. And people are often motivated by immediate emotional rewards to behave self-destructively. For example, a good many people who don't wear masks are contrarians—people who seem to get a self-esteem boost out of courageously taking a stand against group think, at least in their own minds.

    It is also a simple fact that rational consideration of one's self-interest can lead people to act against the large community welfare. The idea that an individual's self-interest rationally considered will somehow always align with the welfare of the larger community is magical thinking.

    Third, although shame can backfire, it is a powerful motivator and can have a profound influence on human behavior. We wouldn't feel shame if that wasn't the case: shame is an emotion that only the most intelligent social animals feel and it exists for a reason. For every person out there who defiantly doesn't wear a mask to metaphorically give a finger to the shamers, I guarantee you there are more who wear it out of desire not to be socially shamed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Sgrantsm

      Thank you, all excellent points. I thought this was a stupid piece but I didn't want to go through it point by point. You did. And you characterized it much better than I did: Bending reality to serve ideology.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      "People are very bad at assessing relative risk." - Hence the popularity of 'Florida Man' memes.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Stray Goose

        Also: "They are also bad at forgoing small short-term rewards for larger long-term rewards." - is it possible that Americans are worse at considering their long-term best interest because we've had generations of a welfare state? Would the typical poor, white Appalachian man still be living in his shack with broken-down cars on his lawn if the welfare checks weren't coming in? What's the cause and what's the effect?

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Tyler

      Public health officials have done a catastrophically bad job of appealing to people on the basis of rational self-interest---or appealing on any kind of rational basis whatsoever. They spent most of February and March lying (unconvincingly) about masks (as but one example see: https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1233725785283932160)¹. Then of course there were the few weeks during which the CDC recommended _against_ getting COVID tests if people thought they were exposed but weren't showing symptoms. If after all of this, you're still following "official guidance" unthinkingly, you are a fool.

      Then you've got politicians, who have done an even worse job. Between meretricious hypocrites like Gavin Newsome (COVID spread in restaurants apparently is inversely proportional to the cost of the entrees and quantity of hair gel worn) and nonsense dictates from the likes of Whitmer (COVID somehow spreads on motorboats but not sailboats, you can't drive alone to your second home because COVID sees your privilege, and somehow picking up a garden trowel with your groceries will kill grandma). And let's not even get to Trump's insanity.

      Certainly, some people will always act like jerks, but it's a small number. Americans by and large _do_ rally together in times of crisis. Look at what happened 9/11 or even WW2. The combination of incompetent government officials, hypocritical and overzealous politicians, and the mind-blowing mendacity of Trump and his craven enablers in the Republican party caused America to fail, both as individuals and a nation.

      If we had a leader who stood up and said "this is going to be tough---maybe the challenge of a generation---and here's what we need to do for ourselves and each other" Americans would have behaved completely differently. Instead of using it as an excuse to fight culture war battles, the response to COVID could have been America's finest hour.

      Character matters. And when it turns out that our leaders have none---from Trump and DeSantis to Cuomo and Newsome---we all pay the price. The fault of the American public lies not in selfishness but bad votes.


      ¹As just a side-note, can someone explain to me what this guy was thinking? If you're going with the Big Lie, you can't show your cards! "Masks won't protect you unless you're a doctor" assumes some pretty epic stupidity on the part of the population. Like is he assuming people believe that masks have chips in them that can tell if you're an MD and then somehow decide on their own whether to work? It's practically de Blasio in its stupidity.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Dina

      I do think that a lot of people wear masks for the same reason that I do: they accept the science and want to reduce transmission.

      Collapse
    5. Foolscap

      >>” For every person out there who defiantly doesn't wear a mask to metaphorically give a finger to the shamers, I guarantee you there are more who wear it out of desire not to be socially shamed.”

      This might be true if they respected the people trying to shame them, but I don’t think they do.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Saied

    Among software engineers and managers, it has always been known that you treat engineers like children, they will behave like children. If you want them to behave like a responsible adult member of the development organization, you have to treat them as such.

    Maybe there is a generalization here. If you treat citizens as children, they will behave accordingly. If you want to see adult responsible behavior, that is how leaders of the government function and the scientific community need to treat the citizens.
    So telling people what you know, what you don't know about the situation, being very honest and scrupulously consistent about it, and telling people what it means for each individual and their loved one's health and safety is one path. Telling people what to do and what not to do and using the police power of the state to enforce it is another thing.

    We have been tested and have not come through with shining colors.

    Collapse
    1. Ben Bobbitt

      Its kind of what we would call the Romans 6 problem: being told to do it makes us want to not do it. Its a natural tendency toward rebellion in all of us.

      My governor has refused to issue a mask mandate, and he’s received a great deal of criticism for that. He has spoken about the need to be responsible and to wear a mask, but he doesn't want to mandate it at the state level. I think theres something to that. I wear a mask and i hope other people do, too, but I also want to live in a country where i have the freedom to be a jerk if I want to.

      And, as a software engineer, i agree with the analogy. Its one reason I hate Agile, as it sort of infantilizes people.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      If the engineer doesn't do what you want, they are fired...

      Collapse
      1. Ben Bobbitt

        Not in an economy where people with even marginal talent are hard to recruit. You sometimes have to make due and get what you can out of people while putting up with a lot of shortcomings because the cost in money and in time can be very high to get someone who may or may mot actually be an improvement. Thats true in lots of businesses, not just engineering, but SW and engineering happen to be very in demand recently.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Oh boy.

          If they have "marginal talent", then they are doing what you want.

          If you hire a software engineer (or any employee) and then they don't do any work, you can fire them. Or choose not to hire them. Or ask them to do something else. If they do this repeatedly, they will not get hired.

          This is a different relationship than an otherwise disconnected citizen, for instance, which is what this article was talking about.

          General social relationships are not the same as employee relationships. To conflate the two is invalid.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Saied

        Not so easy, especially for software engineers. They are hard to find and they can walk out and get another job for more money the next day. Also, the good ones are so productive that you would be hard-pressed to replace them with someone better. Some even have agents. The easier solution is to treat them like a partner in the business and use their talents and motivation to produce great products.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          So wait, if your software engineers sits in front of his desk and does literally nothing, then grabs the ass of all of his/her coworkers on a daily basis then you won't fire him/her? Really? All because their title is, "software engineer"?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Dan

            Depending on the speciality of the software engineer, yes*. That has indeed happened.

            *Usually the man will be fired and then picked up by a competitor who will then arrange for the man to work from home or in a location where any asses he grabs are ones he would not ever want to. It's almost always a white conservative man over 45 who worked for defense contractors, goes to an Evangelical church, has a wife he rarely sees and who insists that he works until he drops dead because she doesn't want him at home, and has either decided that trimming body hair is an unnecessary task, or continues to dress and act like he's a 19 year old Marine when he clearly isn't.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Lindy

            The reason a software engineer is hard to fire isn't because they don't do their job. It's because they do, and they know that job is valued because it's scarce. When their productivity and behavior becomes more of a liability than an asset, of course they would be fired. Your example is extreme.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Dan

          Gotta second this. Sw Devs and engineers are frickin' gold. And they know it.

          Collapse
Load More