3 ms·

This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to

by querez 6y ago

This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat.

logicchains 6y ago
>This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (although some may deny certain government services to people who are unvaccinated). Without a strong commitment to human rights, there's nothing to stop the next racist dictator who comes along from sterilising ethnicities or political groups he doesn't like (as is allegedly happening in Xinjiang).
- perpetualpatzer 6y ago
  > The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights. Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins. Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product. Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.
    - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
      If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious practitioner's worship versus the prohibition on taking the unwilling virgin's life). Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure. Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu. The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.
      - swiley 6y ago
        > emit bromine gas Wouldn’t that require some kind of nuclear reaction/alchemy? I don’t think anything humans are normally exposed to contains bromine.
- latch 6y ago
  This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). At best, a right is a societal norm. They're almost always conditional and complex - if for no other reason than, without conditions, some rights cannot co-exist. A strong commitment to human rights doesn't mean rights are non-conditional, so you're moving the goalpost to make a slippery slope argument. Anyways, laws are what can stop these things from happening. Yes, some laws go hand-in-hand with human(e.g. universal suffrage), some don't (e.g, conflicts of interest laws)
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). From the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" Note the word "inalienable". Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights. Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      The freedom of speech is provided for by both the UN human rights declaration, and an amendment to the constitution - yet there are still some forms of speech which are illegal. Individual rights can (and IMO should) be abridged when it impedes on the greater good.

by querez 6y ago

logicchains 6y ago

>This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (although some may deny certain government services to people who are unvaccinated). Without a strong commitment to human rights, there's nothing to stop the next racist dictator who comes along from sterilising ethnicities or political groups he doesn't like (as is allegedly happening in Xinjiang).

perpetualpatzer 6y ago
> The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights. Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins. Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product. Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.
- logicchains 6y ago
  That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.
  - perpetualpatzer 6y ago
    If I understand the distinction correctly, my freedom of religion example is a conflict between two negative rights (the prohibition on preventing a religious practitioner's worship versus the prohibition on taking the unwilling virgin's life). Extended to unwanted medical treatment... imagine Joe CRISPR'ed himself a gene that improved his eyesight, but also caused him to emit bromine gas that kills 90% of people who come within 100 feet of him. To date, Joe has killed thousands of people with his gas cloud. Society might rightly deem that he was infringing on their right to life and that that negative right was more important than Joe's negative right not to be forced into the reversing medical procedure. Somewhere on the spectrum between "bromine gas cloud" and "germs for the sniffles", there's probably a condition Joe could have for which Joe's right to avoid unwanted medial treatment and society's right to not be needlessly kiled are really evenly balanced. Maybe it's ebola. Maybe it's covid... or measels, or the seasonal flu. The right not to be forced into medical treatments is important and should be talked about, but to cast it as a right and therefore unconditioned and inviolate is to dodge the important societal debate.
    - swiley 6y ago
      > emit bromine gas Wouldn’t that require some kind of nuclear reaction/alchemy? I don’t think anything humans are normally exposed to contains bromine.
latch 6y ago
This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). At best, a right is a societal norm. They're almost always conditional and complex - if for no other reason than, without conditions, some rights cannot co-exist. A strong commitment to human rights doesn't mean rights are non-conditional, so you're moving the goalpost to make a slippery slope argument. Anyways, laws are what can stop these things from happening. Yes, some laws go hand-in-hand with human(e.g. universal suffrage), some don't (e.g, conflicts of interest laws)
- logicchains 6y ago
  >This is absurd bordering on trolling. That isn't the "whole point of rights" (maybe this is what you believe, but that's an opinion, don't present it as a fact). From the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/): "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" Note the word "inalienable". Or if you don't like the UN, there's the US declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The whole point of countries having a supreme court and constitution is to enforce the unconditionality of such rights. Yes it's a political position held by some nowadays that human rights are just a legal fiction granted by the government or "society", but that's not how the nation's founders saw it.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    The freedom of speech is provided for by both the UN human rights declaration, and an amendment to the constitution - yet there are still some forms of speech which are illegal. Individual rights can (and IMO should) be abridged when it impedes on the greater good.