Sen's Instrumental Freedoms and COVID-19

 Sen in Development of Freedom proposed a new way for us to view development, and growth. Previously, people viewed development as GDP growth, but Sen proposes that we look at other factors, not just income to determine what makes someone have a “good living.” He turns to the expansion of freedom as the primary end in enriching human life and also the principal means of development. Further it is to expand the capabilities of people to lead the kinds of lives they value. These principal means of development are the instrumental freedoms consisting of political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security. Further, all these freedoms complete one another, and should be taken into account when looking at the development and success of a country. 

In this blog post, I will examine COVID-19 policies in relation to these instrumental freedoms for the United States. COVID-19 provides an interesting case regarding some freedoms, since the safety of many people, especially older and immunocompromised people, led the country to implement policies which temporarily restricted some freedoms of the American people. In this case, I’m not focused on the development of the country in the US during this time, instead, I’m focused on the prioritization of certain instrumental freedoms to maintain the country’s well-being. Further, I will note that it seems the country mainly prioritized the health and safety of the country to its greatest extent under its governmental system. 

For one, during the pandemic people in the US have maintained their political freedoms. The only time we have seen there been a restriction of political freedoms is when people were spreading false information regarding vaccinations or the origins of COVID-19. However, economic facilities have been greatly affected during periods of lockdown where people had less resources available to consume, less opportunity to produce and thus much less exchange due to covid-19. This has led to increases in unemployment which as Sen noted (generally) contributes to debilitating effects on individual freedom, initiative and skills. Further, it was difficult for some people to lead the kinds of lives they value when everyone had to be under a lockdown. In those situations, depending on their situation, some people significantly sacrificed their capabilities, as being at home greatly restricted their options. For some people, like those who experienced domestic violence or other forms of abuse, lost freedoms when they were forced to remain in those abusive environments. In those situations they may have lost social opportunities that would have been available prior to the pandemic but were now unavailable, or difficult to access. 

In regards to social opportunities, many children experienced a decrease in the quality of their opportunities in the pandemic during earlier parts when the education was remote or hybrid. Prioritizing safety and the health of the general public meant sacrificing some social opportunities like quality of education. However, it seems at least in the beginning of the pandemic, that the more important policies were related to protective security, in providing unemployment benefits and money for small businesses to keep them afloat during these difficult economic times. There were more policies related to protective security, but it definitely seems that this instrumental freedom was essential to combat the effects of the pandemic. These policies were necessary for people as many lost their jobs or were unable to work and thus these policies provided means for those people to continue living with substantial means. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more