Vulnerable people are more likely to stockpile due to anxiety

The argument

Clearly, this anxiety in elderly people is caused by the widespread stockpiling happening in the UK. But this is exactly why we should not condemn stockpiling in all of its forms. If elderly and vulnerable people have limited access and opportunity to buy essentials, then shouldn't we condone their behavior?

Context

The Office for National Statistics released a report on how the Coronavirus pandemic impacted elderly citizens in the UK. While the elderly did not report their finances or well-being were considerably impacted, there was a significant correlation between age demographic and anxiety around accessing essentials.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The argument is circular in a way that defeats the position. It opens by stating that widespread stockpiling is what produced the anxiety and the empty shelves, and then offers that anxiety as grounds for condoning stockpiling. If the practice causes the shortage, licensing more of it in response aggravates the very condition being cited as justification — and the people worst placed to compete for scarce stock are the elderly and vulnerable the argument means to protect, who cannot queue at opening time or make repeated trips. The scope is also far narrower than the position requires. Even granting everything, what has been defended is stockpiling by vulnerable people with limited access, driven by anxiety. The question asks whether stockpiling is ethical; the great majority of the behaviour under discussion was not by that group. A defence that applies to the smallest and least contested category cannot carry a general conclusion, and the rival position holds that stockpiling is unethical precisely because of its effect on people like those the argument invokes. The remedy is also mismatched to the problem it identifies. Limited access for vulnerable shoppers was addressed during the period by dedicated shopping hours, priority delivery slots, purchase limits and volunteer delivery schemes — targeted measures that met the need without depleting supply for everyone else. Where such arrangements exist, the argument's justification lapses. The reasoning is compressed to the point of assertion. 'Clearly, this anxiety is caused by the widespread stockpiling' does the causal work in one word, and the case is put as a rhetorical question rather than argued. Whether anxiety-driven action is ethical is exactly the issue, and understandable motivation is not the same as ethical justification.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise is self-undermining: it identifies widespread stockpiling as the cause of both the anxiety and the limited access, so treating that anxiety as grounds for further stockpiling aggravates the condition it invokes, and the elderly and vulnerable are least able to compete for scarce stock through early queuing or repeated trips. [Rejecting P2] Limited access for vulnerable shoppers was addressed by dedicated shopping hours, priority delivery slots, purchase limits and volunteer schemes — targeted measures that met the need without depleting supply — so the justification lapses wherever such arrangements exist, and understandable motivation is in any case not the same as ethical justification. [Rejecting C] The conclusion is broader than the defence: what is defended is stockpiling by vulnerable people with limited access, which is the smallest and least contested category, while the question asks about the practice generally — most of which was not by that group and is what the rival position objects to on their behalf.