In a recent video, Bill talked about a point in (I think) the Spanish-American War when the Navy needed seven volunteers to sacrifice their lives by sinking a ship to block a harbor, and sent out a call and got practically everyone who heard it to volunteer. And how Mark Twain made the point that the reason was that those people knew they’d be remembered as heroes; if the price had been not physical courage but moral courage, the knowledge that you’d be remembered as a traitor, they’d have been lucky to get even the seven.
I was thinking about this last night and I want to make a similar point to Twain:
Suppose the scenario had been that yes, a massive sacrifice would have worked, but there was also a path to victory that required no sacrifice? That those seven guys could have carried an inflatable raft or something. Or that the sacrifice wasn’t actually required, you can prove that you’ll win either way. Or even worse, that the sacrifice is pointless, you can prove that you’ll lose either way? How many people would have been morally brave enough to say “we shouldn’t do this, and it’s not because I don’t want to, it’s because the battle’s already over?”
For today, you know the answer. Everyone saying, publicly, that masks and lockdowns are stupid, that’s how many people would have that moral courage to advocate a correct decision that also benefits them.
Everyone going along with it, making the sacrifice even though it accomplishes nothing… That’s also a form of moral cowardice.