A tomada de decisão em tempos de pandemia a partir da perspectiva deontológica e teleológica | Decision-making in pandemic times from a deontological and teleological perspective

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a tomada de decisão em relação a problemas prático morais, em tempos de pandemia, a partir dos referenciais da teoria ética da convicção e da teoria ética da responsabilidade. A análise leva em conta as orientações relacionadas à pandemia provocada pelo vírus, SARS-CoV-2: isolamento social horizontal ou isolamento social vertical. O estudo adota a concepção da ética como ciência da moral. Assim, a ética procede de modo crítico e problematizador de toda e qualquer concepção moral. A tomada de decisão é avaliada a partir da interpretação e da diferenciação das duas concepções éticas. O problema principal do trabalho é tentar avaliar, a partir da perspectiva ética, a seguinte questão: qual a principal causa das divergências sobre como agir em tempos de pandemia? A hipótese é que não há consenso sobre a melhor forma de agir, pois as duas concepções partem de diferentes princípios norteadores, portanto de diferentes significados sobre o que é desejável no campo da conduta. O método usado para realizar este trabalho foi o hermenêutico. Este estudo é relevante, pois pode contribuir para argumentarmos com razoabilidade, sem violência, buscando entender as diferentes razões dos posicionamentos das pessoas. A partir desta compreensão, podemos promover um debate mais respeitoso, inclusivo, tolerante e fomentador de boas práticas. Portanto, em tempo de pandemia é extremamente relevante a contribuição da discussão ética sobre este problema que aflige toda a humanidade. AbstractThe purpose of this work is to analyze decision-making in relation to practical moral problems, in times of pandemic, based on references of the ethical theory of conviction and ethical theory of responsibility. The analysis considers the guidelines related to the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, horizontal social isolation, or vertical social isolation. The study adopts the concept of ethics as science of morals. Thus, the ethics proceeds critically and problematizes any and all moral conceptions. The decision-making is assessed based on the interpretation and of differentiation of the two ethical concepts. The main problem of this work is to try to evaluate, from the ethical perspective, the following question: what is the main cause of divergences about how to act in times of pandemic? The hypothesis is that there is no consensus about the best way to act, because the two concepts start from different guiding principles, therefore, distinct meanings about what is desirable in the field of conduct. The method used to carry out this work was the hermeneutic. This study is relevant, as it can help us to reasonably argue, without violence, seeking to understand the different reasons for people’s positionings. From this understanding, we can promote a more respectful, inclusive, tolerant, and good practice-promoting debate. Therefore, in times of pandemic, the contribution of ethical discussion on this problem that affects all humanity is extremely relevant.AbstractThe purpose of this work is to analyze decision-making in relation to practical moral problems, in times of pandemic, based on references of the ethical theory of conviction and ethical theory of responsibility. The analysis considers the guidelines related to the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, horizontal social isolation, or vertical social isolation. The study adopts the concept of ethics as science of morals. Thus, the ethics proceeds critically and problematizes any and all moral conceptions. The decision-making is assessed based on the interpretation and of differentiation of the two ethical concepts. The main problem of this work is to try to evaluate, from the ethical perspective, the following question: what is the main cause of divergences about how to act in times of pandemic? The hypothesis is that there is no consensus about the best way to act, because the two concepts start from different guiding principles, therefore, distinct meanings about what is desirable in the field of conduct. The method used to carry out this work was the hermeneutic. This study is relevant, as it can help us to reasonably argue, without violence, seeking to understand the different reasons for people’s positionings. From this understanding, we can promote a more respectful, inclusive, tolerant, and good practice-promoting debate. Therefore, in times of pandemic, the contribution of ethical discussion on this problem that affects all humanity is extremely relevant.