3 ms·

I'm a little surprised by the upvotes on the parent comment. The categorical imperative is not the only or best rule, but it is a good rule of thumb. It's a g

I'm a little surprised by the upvotes on the parent comment. The categorical imperative is not the only or best rule, but it is a good rule of thumb. It's a good test in this case because it clearly demonstrates the folly of going unvaccinated-- if everyone relies on "herd immunity" there will be no herd immunity. It matters what we say. The mixed messages out there already are dangerous. Kottke put it best in TFA: So get your kids (and yourselves) vaccinated and save them & their playmates from this whooping cough bullshit, which is actually killing actual kids and not, you know, magically infecting them with autism.

lotharbot 16y ago
The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. The problem is that too many people are relying on it for foolish reasons (fear of autism) and not weighing the risks appropriately. Going unvaccinated without extremely good reason, in the present circumstance, is foolish, but don't overgeneralize.
- gte910h 16y ago
  >As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. As an entire country, you are correct (for many diseases, especially ones who have vaccines in the 85% effectiveness ranges). The range of the outbreaks will largely be limited to those 15% who didn't get immunity once vaccinated, and the remainder of those who aren't vaccinated due to their ignorance. However for small groups, they GREATLY increase the chance of the disease hitting your population. By small groups, I mean circles of friends, co-workers, schoolmates, nurserymates, etc. You should IMMEDIATELY kick people from those groups, as they increase your and your children's chances of getting infected quite a bit. (Remember, you and your children have a 15-30% of the vaccine you DID take to not work). Remember, you're not looking at just 15-30% from one disease. They have 0% immunity to EVERY disease.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. Something people overlook is that the slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy in a logical context. People aren't uniformly logical entities, and slippery-slope arguments are not always fallacious when applied to human actions. At some point in any analysis of human behavior and ethics, philosophy is no longer the right tool for the job. You have to turn to psychology.

lotharbot 16y ago

The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. The problem is that too many people are relying on it for foolish reasons (fear of autism) and not weighing the risks appropriately. Going unvaccinated without extremely good reason, in the present circumstance, is foolish, but don't overgeneralize.

gte910h 16y ago
>As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. As an entire country, you are correct (for many diseases, especially ones who have vaccines in the 85% effectiveness ranges). The range of the outbreaks will largely be limited to those 15% who didn't get immunity once vaccinated, and the remainder of those who aren't vaccinated due to their ignorance. However for small groups, they GREATLY increase the chance of the disease hitting your population. By small groups, I mean circles of friends, co-workers, schoolmates, nurserymates, etc. You should IMMEDIATELY kick people from those groups, as they increase your and your children's chances of getting infected quite a bit. (Remember, you and your children have a 15-30% of the vaccine you DID take to not work). Remember, you're not looking at just 15-30% from one disease. They have 0% immunity to EVERY disease.
CamperBob 16y ago
The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. Something people overlook is that the slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy in a logical context. People aren't uniformly logical entities, and slippery-slope arguments are not always fallacious when applied to human actions. At some point in any analysis of human behavior and ethics, philosophy is no longer the right tool for the job. You have to turn to psychology.