The expansion of our ethical responsibility in the wake of COVID-19 should continue after the pandemic subsides

In light of the current pandemic, many politicians have tried everything to flatten the curve and reduce the number of COVID-19 related deaths. Our current strategy of social distancing prevents disease transmission; however, like everything, this comes at a cost.

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York stated during a press conference that “my mother is not expendable, your mother is not expendable and our brothers and sisters are not expendable. We’re not going to accept a premise that human life is disposable, and we’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life.”

Although it is too difficult to determine an exact amount per person, the crisis is expected to cost the global economy over $1 trillion, according to the United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development Agency.

While I do not disagree with the spirit of Cuomo’s statement, we do indeed put monetary value on lives every single day. Why don't we think about these people? Before the pandemic, the lives in question were not American. In secondary countries poverty-related diseases claim thousands of lives daily.

In his book The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, presents the children in the pond thought experiment. Imagine on your morning stroll through the park, you notice a small child drowning in the pond. Your instinct tells you to jump into the water and save the child. After all, the pond is shallow enough such that there is no risk to you. Then you realize the rescue mission will cost you hundreds of dollars to replace your clothes. What exactly is your ethical obligation here?

The majority of people claim that the answer is obvious—save the child! Forget about your fancy suit or dress. These items are replaceable. Most people do not donate the equivalent amount to save a child in a foreign country. Fifteen thousand children succumb to preventable illnesses daily. Singer argues that the geographical separation between us and those suffering is an invalid excuse for both our lack of sympathy and our lack of monetary support.

In fact, donations to those in extreme poverty create the most change. Singer calls this “effective altruism.” Using the online impact calculator, you can determine what a certain monetary donation can do. For only one dollar you can deworm two children or cure three people of iodine deficiency. Countless lives could have been spared for just dollars—much less than the treatment for coronavirus costs.

Due to the current pandemic, we have come to appreciate our neighbors much more. We are willing to sacrifice many conveniences to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. The coronavirus has taught us that a life is a life, regardless of a person’s age or health status. It is time we stop discriminating based on location. We must ask ourselves what we can do for the most vulnerable people around the world.

Watching the death toll climb in your own backyard is without a doubt difficult, but for right now, there is little we can do. The promise of a vaccine is in the hands of the world’s best scientists. Yet, there are still lives that need saving. Lives that you can save right now.

In