25 ms·

Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.

by CyanLite2 5y ago

polote 5y ago
And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.
  - sleavey 5y ago
    I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      > I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. Completely understandable, and, I agree. > I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. Regarding "can always govern by telling the truth," that's demonstrably untrue. For instance, there is such a thing as classified information for a reason (that reason ostensibly being national security). Yes, this does get abused at times, but that's not an argument that the government should not classify any information. Given your reference to Kant, I don't necessarily expect you to find this persuasive, but, I wager many reasonable people would. > ...Kant's categorical imperative.... I am actually familiar, but I reject the logic of it. It's... well... too categorical. I can't accept a principle that forbids me to take an action that may save a life. For example, I would be prohibited from hiding someone in my home who's being pursued by people who want to kill them, if the pursuers asked me directly where that person was. > If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that. I agree with this, but I reject the idea that not following the categorical imperative at all times necessarily deprives anyone of any right.
      - sleavey 5y ago
        The Murderer at the Door hypothetical is commonly mentioned in response to Kant, but I don't think this serves as reason to reject the overall thesis. Kant also said that there is no right for someone to obtain information from another against their will. You don't need to tell someone who comes to your house looking for someone they plan to harm that they are there. You simply tell them they have no right to know who is in your house, and that they should bugger off! In the context of the current discussion, the government doesn't have the moral duty to reply to requests for classified information, they simply say they cannot provide classified information. If the public are unsatisfied with that answer, they need to vote them out. Now I understand that, stretched to extremes, Kant's theory gets rather tricky to defend, such as a hypothetical situation of a Nazi coming to your house to ask if you are harbouring Jews he plans to kill. But Kant and others since have argued ways to deal with such situations too, though I must admit I haven't studied their arguments in detail and wouldn't do them justice to try to paraphrase. But I don't think we're really dealing with such a high stakes situation in the context of this discussion, so I think "lower order" arguments in favour of Kant (like mine) suffice. This is something I expect you'll disagree with given your response. Coming back to the original context of governments lying to people to get them to have vaccines: I think it's possible to do huge damage to public trust in government and science if lies are told for the (always subjective) "greater good", even if the immediate outcome is positive. Governments should understand Kant. P.S. thanks for your level headed response, it's refreshing and rare to see in threads that discuss COVID. P.P.S. sometimes it needs to be said explicitly: I am open to changing my views on this if I hear a convincing argument.
aww_dang 5y ago
I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?
- cogman10 5y ago
  > Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.

Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.

polote 5y ago

And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?

actually_a_dog 5y ago
You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.
- sleavey 5y ago
  I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    > I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. Completely understandable, and, I agree. > I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people. Regarding "can always govern by telling the truth," that's demonstrably untrue. For instance, there is such a thing as classified information for a reason (that reason ostensibly being national security). Yes, this does get abused at times, but that's not an argument that the government should not classify any information. Given your reference to Kant, I don't necessarily expect you to find this persuasive, but, I wager many reasonable people would. > ...Kant's categorical imperative.... I am actually familiar, but I reject the logic of it. It's... well... too categorical. I can't accept a principle that forbids me to take an action that may save a life. For example, I would be prohibited from hiding someone in my home who's being pursued by people who want to kill them, if the pursuers asked me directly where that person was. > If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that. I agree with this, but I reject the idea that not following the categorical imperative at all times necessarily deprives anyone of any right.
    - sleavey 5y ago
      The Murderer at the Door hypothetical is commonly mentioned in response to Kant, but I don't think this serves as reason to reject the overall thesis. Kant also said that there is no right for someone to obtain information from another against their will. You don't need to tell someone who comes to your house looking for someone they plan to harm that they are there. You simply tell them they have no right to know who is in your house, and that they should bugger off! In the context of the current discussion, the government doesn't have the moral duty to reply to requests for classified information, they simply say they cannot provide classified information. If the public are unsatisfied with that answer, they need to vote them out. Now I understand that, stretched to extremes, Kant's theory gets rather tricky to defend, such as a hypothetical situation of a Nazi coming to your house to ask if you are harbouring Jews he plans to kill. But Kant and others since have argued ways to deal with such situations too, though I must admit I haven't studied their arguments in detail and wouldn't do them justice to try to paraphrase. But I don't think we're really dealing with such a high stakes situation in the context of this discussion, so I think "lower order" arguments in favour of Kant (like mine) suffice. This is something I expect you'll disagree with given your response. Coming back to the original context of governments lying to people to get them to have vaccines: I think it's possible to do huge damage to public trust in government and science if lies are told for the (always subjective) "greater good", even if the immediate outcome is positive. Governments should understand Kant. P.S. thanks for your level headed response, it's refreshing and rare to see in threads that discuss COVID. P.P.S. sometimes it needs to be said explicitly: I am open to changing my views on this if I hear a convincing argument.

aww_dang 5y ago

I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions. Do individuals have a right to their own body? Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure? If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask: Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?

cogman10 5y ago
> Do individuals have a right to their own body? Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others. Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car. Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination. > Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line? Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases. I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian. At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Thanks for your response. >It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions. There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise? >At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society... And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda. > The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths. I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.