This year 2020 faced a global crisis through the Pandemic COVID-19, formerly known as SARS-CoV-2. In early March of this year, many stores in the United States began closing down, and the economy began to shut down. Organizations deemed as non-essential were closed, and the people were instructed to remain in their homes unless they absolutely needed to go out. This case study analysis will address some ethical issues regarding dining out during the pandemic.
Is it unethical to dine-in at restaurants in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19? The answer to this question is yes, it can be. However, it can also be unethical not to allow restaurants to remain in business.
It can be unethical to dine out during the pandemic because doing so unnecessarily increases the likelihood of the disease spreading out. Eating out requires taking off protective masks which the CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) deems necessary to protect the public. Taking off the mask at one’s table and calling it the “off mask” section is like being in a pool and calling a certain area the “pee section.” It’s going to spread! The urine will travel through the water just like the virus would travel through the air. Moreover, there is really no way to completely eliminate the chances of catching the virus while dining out. Because people eat out at public restaurants, they are putting themselves and others at risk of infection, and it is therefore not the best ethical decision.
It can also be unethical to close down a family restaurant. Refraining from supporting a dear one’s business would de-emphasize the needs and interests of loved ones. Say for instance there is a single-mother working hard to feed her seven young daughters, and she owns a restaurant that provides her only source of income. Shutting it down would place her in a very difficult dilemma. Does she close and let her daughters starve? Or does she keep her business open at the cost of increasing the risk of viral infection?
What about the immediate people who work for her, like cooks and waiters? Closing down the restaurant would also cost these people their jobs and their ability to take care of their families. Statistically speaking, they have a much greater chance of surviving the COVID-19 virus than they do surviving starvation from lack of food or shelter. Keeping the restaurant open is not meant to be an easy ethical choice. And certainly this pandemic year has not necessarily been the most enjoyable, fun, or thrilling year for everyone (although some folks have been able to find so many things to be grateful for even in a year like 2020). From a Care Ethics perspective, it would be understandable, and ethical, if the single-mother kept her restaurant open to prioritize the basic needs of her seven little girls.
What responsibility do Andy and Megan have to protect the health of others, especially if those others choose to put themselves at risk? As the article explains, Megan and Andy used to go out to eat quite a lot before the pandemic. This of course strengthened the profits of the businesses where they dined. Some could say though that they both have a responsibility to stay at home to decrease the chance of spreading the disease. Even if others choose to put themselves at risk by going to public restaurants, Megan and Andy could avoid dining out in order to protect people from greater risk of infection. Not going out to restaurants could be Megan and Andy’s contribution to reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19.
How should decisions balancing the support of the economy and the protection of people’s health be made during a pandemic? This question is really where everything is headed to. What is the balance? Perhaps one could use the production-possibilities frontier to explain what the best course of action would be. This process is very similar to a consequentialist perspective that strives to maximize profit or “net pleasure.” So, according to the production-possibilities frontier, there exists the right amount to balance out supporting the economy and protecting people’s health.
Say for example, that the country closes down all stores altogether, including gas stations, supermarkets, and of course all restaurants. This would be inefficient because people would likely perish from hunger and thirst even so more than they would from the coronavirus. On the other hand, if all restaurants remained open as they normally are, and, just to make things interesting, if all senior citizens who are vulnerable to the virus were given free groceries or meals as an incentive to get out of the house more, then virus cases would skyrocket considerably and possibly turn out fatal for the people of tertiary age. So what the PPF (production-possibilities frontier) would suggest is to do what maximizes net safety. That is, keep enough supermarkets and shops so that people don’t starve out of their basic needs, while at the same time close many others down so as to negate the effect of rising coronavirus cases.