Justification of Autonomy and Paternalism in the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak : Quest ‘Solidarity’ for an Alternative

The current article claims that it is ineffective to expect that some basic principles ー such as liberty, autonomy, and free choice ー can work in a pandemic situation. In a pandemic outbreak, therefore, the widely discussed strategies of lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, and self-isolation can cause us to revisit the principles of autonomy and paternalism. Quarantine, self-isolation, social distancing, and lockdown are precautions for controlling pandemic outbreaks. Within this context, the current article claims that paternalism has more importance than autonomy as a social decision-making process. One positive aspect of paternalism, in the short term, is that it can effectively prevent national and global threats and coordinate people, governments, and health departments. However, this situation may encourage the state to support paternalism as an acceptable long-term public health policy strategy. But, this is also true, the long-term practice of paternalism, however, cannot benefit our social, political, and democratic ideals. Suppose the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak continues with its prevailing form and character, in that case, many of our social beliefs and values, service concepts of state management, and conventional notions of people’s rights and freedom will be shattered. This article, thus investigates autonomy and paternalism has become unsuccessful in such a tricky situation. In response to this problem, we may approach what the following question: What kind of moral principle should we adopt as an alternative to deal with the emerging situation? This article aims to explore the ethical ideology that is useful and consistent in a pandemic due to the failure of these two moral theories. In responding to this problem, we have referred to ‘solidarity’ as the alternative to interpret the problem.