Abstract：
Suppose COVID-19 is the runaway tram in the famous moral thought experiment, known as the \"Bystander at the Switch.\" Consider the two differentiated responses of governments around the world to this new threat, namely the option of quarantine/lockdown and herd immunity. Can we contrast the hypothetical with the real scenario? What do the institutional decisions and strategies for dealing with the virus, in the beginning of 2020, signify in a normative moral framework? This paper investigates these possibilities in order to highlight the similarities and, more importantly, the differences that exist between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Analysis shows that the hypothetical scenario can never be fully compared to the complex multifactorial nature of the real world. But if a comparison is attempted, the most obvious difference between the two governmental strategies is the concept of duty within the Kantian perspective. Ultimately, it is a matter of comparing freedom and life. Attributing a moral \"priority ticket\" to one or the other can be analysed through interpersonal aggregation.
摘要：
假设COVID-19是著名的道德思想实验中的失控电车，被称为“交换机的旁观者”。“考虑世界各国政府对这一新威胁的两种不同反应，即隔离/封锁和群体免疫的选择。我们可以将假设与真实情景进行对比吗？应对病毒的机构决策和策略是什么，在2020年初，在规范的道德框架中表示？本文调查了这些可能性，以强调相似之处，更重要的是,功利主义和康德伦理之间存在的差异。分析表明，假设的情景永远无法与现实世界的复杂多因素性质完全比较。但是如果尝试比较，两种政府策略之间最明显的区别是康德视角下的责任概念。最终,这是一个比较自由和生活的问题。将道德“优先票”归因于一个或另一个可以通过人际聚合进行分析。
