Prof. Christoph Stückelberger. Photo: globethics.net
* By Sandra Hohendahl-Tesch
Prof. Christoph Stückelberger is president and founder of globethics.net. This interview was first published and produced in German by Reformiert.de
Globethics.net is a global network promoting reflection and action
on ethics, with a head office in Geneva, and which offers access to a
large number of resources on ethics, especially through its online
ethics library.
Link to original Reformiert interview (In German)
WCC webpage "Coping with the Coronavirus"
More information: Globethics.net
Prof. Christoph Stückelberger is president and founder of globethics.net. This interview was first published and produced in German by Reformiert.de
Why is the voice of ethics needed in the current corona crisis?
Prof. Stückelberger: The pandemic
immediately raises the question of what we should do and how to orient
ourselves as a society. The first answer comes from medicine, from
virologists. But how should we deal with it? Whether you call it ethics
or not, there are always questions of values, such as: What is health
worth to us? Who should be protected? How are scarce resources to be
distributed? The current crisis is particularly about balancing
priorities: Which values are most important in which situation? In the
early days of the pandemic, health was paramount and everything else had
to take a back seat. After two or three weeks, a second wave begins.
The economy in terms of financial ability, jobs and purchasing power is
now back. In the medium term, profitability is also a question of life
and death - having nothing to eat means it can threaten life. The new
debt crisis can cost millions of lives worldwide.
There are economists, but also virologists, who would
prefer controlled infection to shut down. What do you say as an
ethicist: is it important to save every life at all costs, even if it
results in immense economic damage for the whole of society?
Prof. Stückelberger: There is no
doubt that we should try to save and preserve life extensively. At the
same time, the protection of life cannot be weighed against the economy.
Because economy should enable life. When the financial system
collapses, the number of victims is even greater. Health and economy
both play a major role; one has to weigh the relevant goods carefully.
Unilaterally relying on measures of health or of economy means that
additional victims are accepted or produced.
The decision about life and death suddenly seems
omnipresent in this crisis. Doctors have to decide who should be
ventilated and who should be allowed to die.
Prof. Stückelberger: Resources
should be distributed fairly in order to preserve the lives of as many
people as possible. This is how the ethical guidelines of the Swiss
Society for Medical Sciences set it. Particularly important in the
pandemic is the additional remark in the guidelines that a person's
money, status or fame should not play a role in the distribution of
resources. In practice, we constantly make decisions about life and
death, not only in the extreme situation of the pandemic. How much
development aid we provide and ultimately how much we pay for a mango
from Ghana has a concrete impact on the viability and the life of
others. So we are not suddenly confronted with a new question, but it is
much more conscious and obvious because it directly affects us in the
idea that we have to go to hospital and cannot expect to get to the
machine. The access to and distribution of resources is the most
important question of justice.
What do you mean?
Prof. Stückelberger: I give an
example. When my father, who was living a fulfilling life as a Reformed
pastor, was in the elderly people's home, he suffered a lot from the
question of justice. He had a guilty conscience because his nursing home
cost a total of around ten thousand francs a month and that money could
have cured a hundred blind children from their eye disease every month.
But the life of a very old and or sick person is also valuable and
meaningful.
The value of vulnerable life is in everyone's
consciousness these days. We practice solidarity: everyone has to stay
at home to protect old and weak people. Can that go well in the
long-run?
Prof. Stückelberger: It is
impressive to see how solidarity is there and how it works. Through the
threat, we rediscover virtues, exercise self-discipline and modesty.
These are good signals. However, the question arises whether solidarity
is deeply rooted in us or is only a pragmatic necessity. This would not
last long. As soon as it becomes materially difficult, solidarity is
exposed to an extreme burden - this is where the belief that solidarity
is a life task comes into play. We are still comfortably on the move in
Switzerland. Worldwide, for example in Africa, people are already at the
limit of material possibilities. A picture comes to my mind that I
received yesterday: someone is sitting on the corrugated iron roof of a
hut and doing social distancing. Often ten people live on six square
meters. In such situations, entirely different dimensions of solidarity
are required.
In other words: as long as there is prosperity,
solidarity is noticeable, when resources are running out, there is a
risk of argument and even violent conflict?
Prof. Stückelberger: Signs of
de-solidarization can be seen even before we get into a fight.
Conspiracy theories quickly emerge in the pandemic. You try to maintain
solidarity by creating enemy images. For example, the Chinese are to
blame for everything. Or: Why should we take patients from Alsace in
nearby France with us in Basel when we may soon need the space
ourselves?
In the solidarity question, one can go back to a simple ethical
principle, the golden rule that applies in all world religions (Bible Mt
7:12): Treat the other as you want to be treated yourself. Whoever
helps the other can also count on help. Helping is not only altruistic,
but win-win.
You address conspiracy theories. In certain religious
circles, the pandemic is seen as God's punishment. What do you think of
it as a theologian?
Prof. Stückelberger: The Bible has a
different approach, especially the New Testament: "God did not send
Jesus into the world to condemn people, but to save / heal them." (John
3:17). This is an important message that should be a priority for
churches and believers. It is also the essence of the Easter message: We
no longer need scapegoats, but once and for all Jesus has taken the
cross upon himself and freed us from the constant mechanism of looking
for guilty parties. God does not want to harm us, but to help us.
A related aspect: The belief that faith protects us from all
evil is unfortunately widespread: the virus spread explosively in South
Korea because a mass church continued to worship against warnings. We
also experience this in Africa. Up to the Zurich auxiliary bishop, who
wants to stick to the award of the host. This is negligent. It can
become a crime as it can kill people - and it is unchristian. I see it
like John Calvin. The Geneva Reformer in the 16th century was in poor
health and was often dependent on medicine. The believers in Geneva
wanted to test him; they asked him to stop taking medication and instead
trust in God. But he believed that medicine was sent by God. Doctors,
nursing staff, medication and vaccinations are talents and instruments
of God and not of the devil.
What do you think: is the crisis causing a change in values?
Prof. Stückelberger: Yes and no. We
interpret the pandemic through the glasses of our worldview. A
nationalist becomes even more a nationalist, one who is open to the
world demands even more global solidarity. The pandemic can only have a
positive impact if we are prepared for it from our inner order of
values. Otherwise, there is a rapid relapse into the old patterns. At
the same time, I'm sure that the exaggerated individualism of the past
decades will be challenged. We recognize the value of community. We
recognize how dependent we are on the smallest communities such as core
families. I think there will be significant shifts in perception.
Especially as a result of the economic collapse. Global indebtedness
will take on mass as it did in the 1980s. It will take enormous effort
to overcome this and restore a reasonably functioning world economy. The
digital technologies will increase in importance. The sustainability
goals are more difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, I am confident. One
will recognize the importance of multinational organizations and know
that WHO plays an incredibly important, not only coordinating, but also
predictive and helping role. We rely on international structures.
Link to original Reformiert interview (In German)
WCC webpage "Coping with the Coronavirus"
More information: Globethics.net