Forced vaccinations

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Forced vaccinations

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 340 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #11

Post by The Barbarian »

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
The ruling you've cited here supports my original contention that the history surrounding forced vaccination sets precedent for the States to ultimately determine whether a vaccine mandate is appropriate for the general public, not the federal government.
That's not what the court said. So your addition probably wouldn't stand inspection by a court.
I also suggested, in my previous response, that historical precedent does not a just law make (necessarily).
It merely established that vaccination mandates are constitutional. Which is all that's needed.
However, it isn’t yet clear that the unvaccinated populous poses a sufficiently dangerous threat to the vaccinated so as to override the personally liberty to choose whether to undergo COVID vaccination.
Since an infected person can infect another person, who can die, I would think "loss of llife" would be sufficient seriousness.

George Washington requiring smallpox vaccination in the Continental Army. Which happened somewhat earlier.
Washington issued the order to have all troops inoculated on Feb. 5, 1777, in a letter to John Hancock, who was president of the Second Continental Congress. In another letter, Washington ordered all recruits arriving in Philadelphia be inoculated.
https://www.wral.com/fact-check-did-geo ... /19807935/
The forced inoculation of Washington’s troops is not sufficient grounds for supposing that the federal government has the right to circumvent state authority by mandating vaccination among the general (civilian) populous.
It merely shows that common law has also permitted this. So the Supreme Court, in ruling that vaccine mandates were constitutional, no doubt took notice of it.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements?
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
Which serves to demonstrate my point that the lion’s share of the danger the unvaccinated actually pose is to one another.
Would be so, if vaccination was 100% effective. But with Delta variant, it's more like 85% effective. So it's quite a reasonable mandate.
If that danger is mutually consented to (which in the case of the religiously exempt, it is) then it is unclear why such individuals should be denied the opportunity to participate in semi-normal business operations (or permitted to work remotely when possible).
If people in a community all agree that they'd be O.K. with drunk driving, we should let them do it? I don't think so.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am
Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease.
That's a testable belief. Almost all patients in ICUs are now unvaccinated people. Thought you knew.
A refusal to vaccinate does not preclude COVID immunity, nor does the presence of unvaccinated individuals in ICUs show that natural immunity isn’t a thing/
Many people who drive drunk, never kill anyone. But drunk drivers kill other motorists at a much higher rate than sober drivers. Hence the law. Thought you knew.

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general).
And now you see why that's wrong. Just because there is such a thing as drunk drivers who never kill anyone, does not justify putting people at risk by letting people drive drunk.

Last time I was tested, it took less than five minutes, and I did it in my car. Last time I was vaccinated, it took 15 minutes only because they make people wait a few minutes to assure that rare allergic reactions don't happen (which, BTW are easily countered by a quick injection of epinephrine).

Bottom line? Religious objections does not amount to a freedom to endanger others.
That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to you is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.
They could avoid it in several ways. They could just get vaccinated. They could work at home, and not go where they'd be a danger to others.
In any case, if the primary reason for subjecting the religiously exempt to a weekly testing regimen stems primarily from their refusal to vaccinate, and not specifically a lack of immunity, then I would argue that the requirement constitutes a discriminatory form of harassment which, in intent, unduly punishes the religiously exempt for the "crime" of adhering to their religious conviction to forgo vaccination.
Supreme Court already ruled on it. You lost.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 379 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #12

Post by Diagoras »

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm As an aside, it is entirely unclear to me why those among the unvaccinated who can demonstrate sufficient natural immunity should be excluded from business operations.
How would someone demonstrate that?

That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to [The Barbarian] is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.
The other way of thinking about this of course, is that eventually it'd become a familiar and reassuring routine, done for everyone's personal safety.

Like putting on a seatbelt or wearing a hard hat on a construction site.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 340 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #13

Post by The Barbarian »

I remember when women were rebelling against seat belts because they thought it would wrinkle their clothes.

You're right about this kind of thing where it requires very little time or trouble to do. Always someone trying to finagle around it. Until it becomes normal, and then no one thinks anything about it.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #14

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:48 pmGetting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.
This use of endangering others is a bit of an issue for me, though I admit I don't know how the law should go on this one, because there are serious problems either way.

If being a stepping stone for a virus is endangering others, the implications of that, I feel, are worrying. This is because not endangering others now requires positive corrective action for a situation I never asked to be in. It might even require suicide, because I can spread the virus even with the vaccine, and even wearing a mask.

A more extreme version of the same situation is someone who catches a horribly lethal disease on an alien planet. If he finds out during the incubation period, may we require him to kill himself to protect ourselves? I don't know the answer to that.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 340 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #15

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:00 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:48 pmGetting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.
This use of endangering others is a bit of an issue for me, though I admit I don't know how the law should go on this one, because there are serious problems either way.
There are libertarians extreme enough to say that drunk driving should not be a crime, since some people can drink and still drive relatively safely. I don't buy it. It does intrude on one's right to use one's property. The issue is that public property is not exclusively theirs, and everyone gets a say in how it should be used for the benefit of everyone. I don't know of a jurisdiction that says you can't drive drunk on a road you build on your own land for your exclusive use.
If being a stepping stone for a virus is endangering others, the implications of that, I feel, are worrying. This is because not endangering others now requires positive corrective action for a situation I never asked to be in. It might even require suicide, because I can spread the virus even with the vaccine, and even wearing a mask.
So because I could still make an error driving that killed some one, even if I didn't drink or drive recklessly, I might be asked to kill myself? Seems kinda unlikely. If I had a condition that might unpredictably make me lose control of an automobile, I might be legally prevented from driving. I believe that restriction already exists, although no one has so far, been asked to kill himself over it.
A more extreme version of the same situation is someone who catches a horribly lethal disease on an alien planet. If he finds out during the incubation period, may we require him to kill himself to protect ourselves? I don't know the answer to that.
In the early 60s, there was at least one science fiction story based on that. In the story, the surviving astronaut chose to die, rather than return to earth with the infection. It is one of the reasons that the first people on the moon were so carefully quarantined and disinfected.

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #16

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
The ruling you've cited here supports my original contention that the history surrounding forced vaccination sets precedent for the States to ultimately determine whether a vaccine mandate is appropriate for the general public, not the federal government.
That's not what the court said. So your addition probably wouldn't stand inspection by a court.
The court has not ruled that the Federal government has the authority to circumvent state governments by issuing a statewide vaccine mandate. Judicial precedent shows just the opposite.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm I also suggested, in my previous response, that historical precedent does not a just law make (necessarily).
It merely established that vaccination mandates are constitutional. Which is all that's needed.
It doesn’t at all show that our current federal vaccine mandate is constitutional. Precedent + the 10th amendment seems to suggests the opposite.
In any case, constitutional permissibility does not, in itself, demonstrate that a given law is de facto moral (e.g. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 which prohibited the Federal government from limiting the importation of slaves).
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
However, it isn’t yet clear that the unvaccinated populous poses a sufficiently dangerous threat to the vaccinated so as to override the personally liberty to choose whether to undergo COVID vaccination.
Since an infected person can infect another person, who can die, I would think "loss of llife" would be sufficient seriousness.
Those infected with the flu could (and do) produce the very same outcome, yet we don’t mandate flu vaccination precisely because our current flu vaccines, on the whole, work well at decreasing (though not eliminating) the likelihood of severe illness or death (irrespective of the existence of novel strains). Our Covid vaccinations are advertised to do just the same. Ergo, if you’re worried about getting sick, get vaccinated. In doing so, you can expect a reasonable degree of protection irrespective of whether your neighbor has selected to do the same.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
It merely shows that common law has also permitted this. So the Supreme Court, in ruling that vaccine mandates were constitutional, no doubt took notice of it.
What this does not show is that the current federal mandate, as it is written, is constitutional (for reasons already stated which you’re simply not addressing).
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements?
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
So do those who refuse to vaccinate against any illness (assuming they have not already acquired natural immunity), this in itself is not sufficient grounds for implementing a vaccination mandate as our currently policy regarding flu vaccination clearly shows.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
Which serves to demonstrate my point that the lion’s share of the danger the unvaccinated actually pose is to one another.
Would be so, if vaccination was 100% effective. But with Delta variant, it's more like 85% effective. So it's quite a reasonable mandate.
Compared to the efficacy of our flu vaccines (which the CDC has listed between 16-75% depending upon seasonal factors), the COVID vaccines are looking pretty good. Perhaps even more so, in certain cases where variables pertaining to age and general fitness are considered.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
If that danger is mutually consented to (which in the case of the religiously exempt, it is) then it is unclear why such individuals should be denied the opportunity to participate in semi-normal business operations (or permitted to work remotely when possible).
If people in a community all agree that they'd be O.K. with drunk driving, we should let them do it? I don't think so.
I wasn’t aware that COVID infection carried with it an analogous risk of collateral damage to, and destruction of, private/public property. I’m also not aware of a medication people can administer to themselves and their property which inoculates them from the colliding with drunk drivers.

But seriously, are you honestly suggesting that the law makes no provision for the public to mutually consent to activities known to increase the risk of personal and collective harm? If so, how do you account for designated smoking areas, cage fighting, demolition derby, stunt work, or our present accommodations for those who would forgo flu vaccination?
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease.
That's a testable belief. Almost all patients in ICUs are now unvaccinated people. Thought you knew.
A refusal to vaccinate does not preclude COVID immunity, nor does the presence of unvaccinated individuals in ICUs show that natural immunity isn’t a thing/
Many people who drive drunk, never kill anyone. But drunk drivers kill other motorists at a much higher rate than sober drivers. Hence the law. Thought you knew.
Do naturally immune (unvaccinated individuals) likewise harm others at a much higher rate than the vaccinated? If not, I'm uncertain what relevance your response has to my previous comment.

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general).
And now you see why that's wrong. Just because there is such a thing as drunk drivers who never kill anyone, does not justify putting people at risk by letting people drive drunk.
Your analogy is flawed. There is no evidence to support the notion that those who are unvaccinated (with natural immunity) pose a significant threat to others (especially the the vaccinated). Furthermore, there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between unvaccinated individuals who have natural immunity and those who do not (particularly in terms of their ability to pose risk). This is certainly not the case with respect to drunk drivers. Those who do kill others and those who don't still possess the same inherent capacity to cause harm... Hence the law. Thought you knew. (insert additional snide remark).
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm

That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to you is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.
They could avoid it in several ways. They could just get vaccinated.
Yes, they could just go ahead and jettison their religious convictions and undergo vaccination in order to avoid the adverse employment action of undergoing weekly routine testing…That wouldn’t at all run contrary to the protections afforded by Title VII…Would it?

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #17

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:37 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm As an aside, it is entirely unclear to me why those among the unvaccinated who can demonstrate sufficient natural immunity should be excluded from business operations.
How would someone demonstrate that?
We could, in principle, test for this.
Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:37 pm
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm
That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to [The Barbarian] is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.
The other way of thinking about this of course, is that eventually it'd become a familiar and reassuring routine, done for everyone's personal safety.

Like putting on a seatbelt or wearing a hard hat on a construction site.
Are you honestly suggesting that the act of making weekly (and indefinite) trips to one's local testing center (on their personal time and at their personal expense) is roughly as inconvenient and non-intrusive as placing a hat on one's head or strapping a seatbelt across one's waist?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 340 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #18

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:12 pm That's not what the court said. So your addition probably wouldn't stand inspection by a court.
The court has not ruled that the Federal government has the authority to circumvent state governments by issuing a statewide vaccine mandate. Judicial precedent shows just the opposite.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:54 pm It doesn’t at all show that our current federal vaccine mandate is constitutional.
That's what it does. In fact, it shows that such mandates are constitutional and override state rules. Notice that airlines and cruise lines have informed Gov. Ron in Florida that his decree against them has no legal basis. And he shut up about banning vaccine mandates for them.
In any case, constitutional permissibility does not, in itself, demonstrate that a given law is de facto moral
All that's necessary is that they are legal.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm However, it isn’t yet clear that the unvaccinated populous poses a sufficiently dangerous threat to the vaccinated so as to override the personally liberty to choose whether to undergo COVID vaccination.
Since an infected person can infect another person, who can die, I would think "loss of llife" would be sufficient seriousness.
Those infected with the flu could (and do) produce the very same outcome, yet we don’t mandate flu vaccination precisely because our current flu vaccines, on the whole, work well at decreasing (though not eliminating) the likelihood of severe illness or death (irrespective of the existence of novel strains).
Actually, many vaccines are mandated, and have been for many years. Perfectly legal. It's probably true that if politically-obsessed people didn't make such an issue of endangering others by refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, there wouldn't be so much effort to issue mandates.
Ergo, if you’re worried about getting sick, get vaccinated.
"Ergo, if you're worried about being killed by a drunk driver, just wear your seat belt. In doing so, you can expect a reasonable degree of protection irrespective of whether your neighbor has selected to drive while drunk."

It merely shows that common law has also permitted this. So the Supreme Court, in ruling that vaccine mandates were constitutional, no doubt took notice of it. [/quote]
What this does not show is that the current federal mandate, as it is written, is constitutional
It does, for reasons I've already addressed. If you think it's faulty, by all means join one of the lawsuits, if any of them are still alive.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements?
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
So do those who refuse to vaccinate against any illness (assuming they have not already acquired natural immunity)...
Yes, this in itself is sufficient grounds for implementing a vaccination mandate as our current laws indicate. There are a number of such mandates, all legally tested and still standing.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm Which serves to demonstrate my point that the lion’s share of the danger the unvaccinated actually pose is to one another.
Would be so, if vaccination was 100% effective. But with Delta variant, it's more like 85% effective. So it's quite a reasonable mandate.
Compared to the efficacy of our flu vaccines (which the CDC has listed between 16-75% depending upon seasonal factors)
Which, I suppose, is why the flu vaccine is not mandated, while more effective vaccines like COVID-19 or diptheria are mandated.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm If that danger is mutually consented to (which in the case of the religiously exempt, it is) then it is unclear why such individuals should be denied the opportunity to participate in semi-normal business operations (or permitted to work remotely when possible).
If people in a community all agree that they'd be O.K. with drunk driving, we should let them do it? I don't think so.
I wasn’t aware that COVID infection carried with it an analogous risk of collateral damage to, and destruction of, private/public property.
Neither does a diptheria vaccination. The stated reason for banning drunk drivers is to save lives. I guess saving property is a minor, bu useful factor.
I’m also not aware of a medication people can administer to themselves and their property which inoculates them from the colliding with drunk drivers.
But we do have seat belts which are pretty effective, but not 100%.
But seriously, are you honestly suggesting that the law makes no provision for the public to mutually consent to activities known to increase the risk of personal and collective harm?
So long as it's done privately and endangers no one who does not consent, the law often (but not always) condones it. A person who refuses vaccination and avoids endangering others by staying out of public places, would likely be tolerated.
If so, how do you account for designated smoking areas, cage fighting, demolition derby, stunt work, or our present accommodations for those who would forgo flu vaccination?
See above.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease.
That's a testable belief. Almost all patients in ICUs are now unvaccinated people. Thought you knew.
A refusal to vaccinate does not preclude COVID immunity,
We're testing that now in a natural experiment. Turns out, it fails a lot.

Many people who drive drunk, never kill anyone. But drunk drivers kill other motorists at a much higher rate than sober drivers. Hence the law. Thought you knew.
Do naturally immune (unvaccinated individuals) likewise harm others at a much higher rate than the vaccinated?
Do naturallly safe drunk drivers harm others at a much higher rate then drivers who don't drink? Yes, I think so. But I'd be pleased to see your data on COVID. What do you have?
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general).
And now you see why that's wrong. Just because there is such a thing as drunk drivers who never kill anyone, does not justify putting people at risk by letting people drive drunk. Further, neither testing nor vaccination is "burdensome."
Your analogy is flawed. There is no evidence to support the notion that those who are unvaccinated (with natural immunity) pose a significant threat to others (especially the the vaccinated).
If one can obtain a test and a certification that one is immune to COVID-19 infection it would be reasonable to certify them as effectively vaccinated. Maybe you should work on that.
Furthermore, there is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between unvaccinated individuals who have natural immunity and those who do not (particularly in terms of their ability to pose risk). This is certainly not the case with respect to drunk drivers.
And yet there are drunk drivers who are capable of drinking and driving without harming people. Cops call them "crafty drunks." In the absence of data showing that the are reliably safe, they still get arrested. So it is with unvaccinated people. Again, perhaps you should find a way to identify those who are supposed to be not dangeous.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to you is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.
They could avoid it in several ways. They could just get vaccinated.
Yes, they could just go ahead and jettison their religious convictions and undergo vaccination in order to avoid the adverse employment action of undergoing weekly routine testing…That wouldn’t at all run contrary to the protections afforded by Title VII…Would it?
It seems so selfish of vulnerable people to demand that others take steps to avoid infecting them, doesn't it? But as you see, it comes down to the law, which is constitutional. Sorry about that.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #19

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:01 am
Purple Knight wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:00 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:48 pmGetting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.
This use of endangering others is a bit of an issue for me, though I admit I don't know how the law should go on this one, because there are serious problems either way.
There are libertarians extreme enough to say that drunk driving should not be a crime, since some people can drink and still drive relatively safely. I don't buy it. It does intrude on one's right to use one's property. The issue is that public property is not exclusively theirs, and everyone gets a say in how it should be used for the benefit of everyone. I don't know of a jurisdiction that says you can't drive drunk on a road you build on your own land for your exclusive use.
Not driving drunk is still a negative duty. In other words, don't do something. I've met these libertarians. Many of them want the right to drive drunk, because the government's roads are really their roads, the libertarians' roads, as the government is illegitimate and has no right to really own anything, but the government absolutely has the right to say no driving without insurance, because, supposedly, an unfunded liability equals aggression, and stopping aggression is the one thing government can do legitimately. Driving so bleeped off your bleep you can't see straight? A natural right! The ones to best determine how drunk they are, are the drinkers, of course! But not paying $$$ to an insurance company because I'm forced to? Why, that's the same as putting a revolver with five bullets to someone else's head and pulling the trigger.

I think it's obvious why libertarians espouse what they do.
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:01 am
A more extreme version of the same situation is someone who catches a horribly lethal disease on an alien planet. If he finds out during the incubation period, may we require him to kill himself to protect ourselves? I don't know the answer to that.
In the early 60s, there was at least one science fiction story based on that. In the story, the surviving astronaut chose to die, rather than return to earth with the infection. It is one of the reasons that the first people on the moon were so carefully quarantined and disinfected.
Well yes, I believe I know the story you're talking about, and it's a heroic act certainly. My question is if we may require that act for the benefit of our own safety. Requiring people to wear masks is absurdly small a thing next to that, but it's a bridge we're unquestionably treading out upon when we start requiring strangers to do anything to keep us safe.

I can even understand requiring this particular suicide. But next let's examine a fellow who has an alien parasite that isn't directly endangering anyone's health. The fellow, however, is caused by the parasite to black out. He is told when he comes to, look, you've killed someone, that parasite is to blame, and since we can't get it out of you, please kindly bury yourself six feet under immediately. In this case, the fellow disputes it. He doesn't remember killing, nor think he would. This adds a grain of doubt to the facts, which there will almost always be, and like it or not, we do have to admit that the least trustworthy person is sometimes right.

One more step down the bridge we come to the most ridiculous case, a man whose kidneys are failing, so he walks up to someone compatible and simply demands the healthy fellow's kidney. This has the element of doubt since the donor organ might always be rejected. It also takes the situation to its most extreme, and permits the idea that no matter what the risk is to us, we may always demand actions out of others that keep us safe. Irrespective of relative value, a 129-year-old might even do this to a healthy 20-year-old, because once that demand can be made, the fact that the heart will only grant him another few days of life, while it would keep the 20-year-old living for quite a while, the geriatric simply chooses to make a demand he has a right to make - he is ill, an action from someone else would keep him safe, therefore do that action.

I would very much like to have the world where we have this right to demand reasonable actions but we stop just past inconvenience. But then, the kidney one might still be reasonable. Living with just one kidney merely presents a host of inconveniences. What qualifies as mere inconvenience and what moves beyond are, sadly, strictly personal. I would give up my kidney before my cats, but someone else might rightly say, where is the benefit in those, there is none, give them to me or kill them all if there's even a .000001% chance a half-centimeter-tall rural Chinaman will sneak into your house under your door and eat one of them raw causing the next coronavirus when FIP becomes transmissible to humans (I'm not insulting the Chinese here, but I am poking fun at the idea that eating an undercooked bat caused the virus to cross the species barrier, as well as the era-transcending paranoia that the Chinese are the boogeyman, and the people who think they eat cats).

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #20

Post by AgnosticBoy »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:36 pm With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?
I never speak about right and wrong in an objective sense. This matter is subjective or even relative, given the goals. If the goal is to prevent covid-19 transmission and deaths, then getting vaccinated is obviously the best option. While I'm not against the government requiring people to do things, esp. when it's to avoid harm, but I am against harsh consequences. Making people lose their livelihoods will create its own problem because then the unemployed won't have the income to cover for food and a place to stay. Sure, they can go get a minimum wage job, but that might not always be feasible if their standard of living revolved around the job previously held.

I'd only be for vaccine mandates if we consider the consequences. You don't want the unvaccinated population increasing the spread of the virus, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that we should let that population starve either.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply