[ad_1]
This article is over a month old and may contain outdated advice from authorities regarding coronary heart disease.
Stay up to date on the NRK overview or on the FHI website.
It’s been nine months since the government launched the fight against infection as a national charity. It was not a random choice of words.
It is common to say that volunteering is a special Norwegian word that describes a special Norwegian activity, but people have probably always volunteered to come together to solve problems. Also outside the borders of Norway.
But the Norwegians are It is undoubtedly easy to invite to a solidarity event: The term has a strong motivating function, regardless of the size of the group that meets to solve a specific task. In reality, it can be the entire nation, regardless of what the task is, or whether it is voluntary at all.
Obviously, it is a strength to have concepts available that can motivate an entire population. But words are magic, they create reality, and therefore we must be vigilant when meaningful words are used in a new context.
One thing is that it is not volunteering which has been the pillar of this plan. The use of precautionary measures and prohibitions in the private sphere has been a new experience for Norwegians. Another, and perhaps more important, is that what you have been invited to do breaks with something of the very essence of what a charity is: contribute together, absolutely, but also contribute more or less equally.
We have probably all been involved in volunteer work, in kindergartens, schools, and sports teams. As much as it has been a matter of doing work, it has also had the function, perhaps particularly Norwegian, of expressing equality: the loads are equally distributed. And not least, those who organize the volunteer work themselves bear the burden.
The hard work that has gone into in 2020, in practice, there has been no attempt to distribute loads equally. On the contrary.
Some have contributed to losing their entire life’s job, others have contributed to financial ruin, and still others have contributed to becoming unemployed, and may also contribute to remaining unemployed.
And those who were initially vulnerable have contributed to becoming more vulnerable.
Vulnerable children contributed with becoming more vulnerable when schools closed. Victims of violence helped to become more victims of violence when the population was sent home. Lonely young people have contributed to feeling more alone, and the elderly and the sick have contributed to dying alone without those closest to them.
But this doesn’t apply to most, so someone might object. For many, this has gone very well. Alone. Some have borne very heavy loads, others have not. And that’s probably the point: how much unequal burden distribution can you have and still call it charity?
It’s one thing that the drop has been so great that it probably doesn’t make sense to call it a charity event.
Another thing is that the idea of a national charity can not only give a wrong description of reality. It can also end up building a fictional world that effectively shields us from it.
It can feed a peculiar form of blindness called ethical blindness: reality becomes so one-dimensional that we lose the ability to develop counter-perceptions; it becomes so natural that nothing seems to have to be justified.
Decisions that have to do with society and health almost always have to do with weighing advantages and disadvantages against each other. What is good for one thing can be dangerous for something else. Dealing with one disease can create another disease, solving one social problem can create another.
This is the starting point for ethical reflection.
It is reported daily and systematically in the media on the number of infected, hospitalized and deceased by covid-19. What if bankruptcies, drugs, violence, layoffs, and suicides were reported so systematically? Every year, approximately 600 suicides are recorded in Norway. The actual number is probably even higher. What if this was just reported?
Being able to change your perspective is an important part of ethical reflection, but the spirit of hard work leaves little room to do so.
The path is short from the concept of a national charity to becoming a one-thing society, and suddenly we can no longer demand or give a balanced representation of the proportionality of the measures we take. What if, in general, they do more harm than good?
This will eventually become a political problem.
A national charity it’s just a bad starting point for politics, simply because a charity is just about getting the job done. One does not engage in disagreement, criticism, and opposition in a charity, and thus the very driving force of politics is eroded.
Politics is not just about getting the job done, but perhaps more about deciding what job to do.
Without disagreements and discussions, the exercise of political power will lose the resistance and the corrective actions necessary to set the correct course.
