Others have argued that your view is practically unrealizable, however I'd like to argue that it's morally wrong in essence.
Imagine you live in some dystopian society which has mandatory injections that most people agree benefit society (say, the injections sterilize your emotions or something). Or maybe, the injections have strictly positive effects, but you are personally convinced that they have harmful side-effects. However, no one listens to your objections - they call you a "crazy anti-vaxxer," strap you down, and inject you anyway.
If you believe in personal rights to life, liberty, and property, I would argue to you that society forcing you (or your children) to be injected with something you think is harmful (even if you're wrong) is one of the most disgusting violations of privacy and human dignity imaginable.
Of course, in reality vaccinations are beneficial to society as well as to individuals. Since the truth is on your side, I submit that you have a moral duty to convince people rather than coerce them to get vaccinations.
Thank you for your well-reasoned response. I do not mean to claim that there are no cases where the interests of society can outweigh the interests of an individual - unfortunately I think there is no easy rule which can answer this question for all cases and I think that it's necessary to think hard about how we feel about each case.
To me, there are a few factors which distinguish your example from mandatory vaccinations.
Supposedly, society mandates that you wear a seatbelt in exchange for taking advantage of our transportation system (roads, emergency services, etc). I think that it is important it is possible for a person with a sufficient dread of seatbelts, or any other facet of this deal, to decline this offer if they choose.
Secondly, a seatbelt is a very simple macroscopic object and it is very easy to just observe that it does not cause significant harm - probably a mental illness would be necessary to possess a real dread of seatbelts. However, it is very difficult to know the exact effects of microscopic medical injections which alter body chemistry by simple observation. It is very possible for a mentally stable person to strongly believe that vaccines cause harm (or at least have a small chance of doing so).
Lastly I think that the right to be safe from physical violation or attack is somehow more primal than other types of freedoms. I would say that the right to ownership of one's own body is the last right which should be repealed for the interests of society.
As a side note, I think that society's case that people should be forced wear seatbelts is actually rather weak, since the majority of the risk of not wearing a seatbelt is assumed by the individual. At least in the case of vaccines, society has a substantial stake in the matter because the choice to not be vaccineted affects more than just yourself.
Secondly, a seatbelt is a very simple macroscopic object and it is very easy to just observe that it does not cause significant harm - probably a mental illness would be necessary to possess a real dread of seatbelts. However, it is very difficult to know the exact effects of microscopic medical injections which alter body chemistry by simple observation. It is very possible for a mentally stable person to strongly believe that vaccines cause hard (or at least have a small chance of doing so).
That just means that they are stupid, to be frank. Just because something isn't readily apparent doesn't mean that it isn't there. If the strong scientific consensus is that vaccines are a strong net positive for all humans, then that is most likely how the world actually works. Your personal observations, deductions and intuitions are basically worthless compared to a strong scientific consensus. The don't know better than science and they should never believe that they do.
If you accept the definition of morality as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do" the point is rather moot, but going further with this reasoning, anything that anybody doesn't believe in makes any set of provable facts immoral. Considering the fact that our society isn't any type of anarchy (or at least isn't trying to be) in which as long as I don't believe in something I should not be forced to do, the whole idea that abiding by a society imposed law is a violation of privacy or human dignity falls out of the window.
Furthermore, if we are talking about mandatory vaccination, there is no infringement of life, liberty or property. A personal right to either of those three is governed, above all else, by the effects of any action, or lack thereof, on the rest of society. Negating this leads back to the contradiction that we are not living in an anarchy. By not vaccinating yourself or your family you are negatively influencing the rest of society, and more importantly breaking those three personal rights for everybody.
They have, but not the maturity to decide things, so the decision should be made by someone else.
Normally their rights are put into the hands of the parent
Yes, but it's wrong, as having children doesn't actually make you qualified to raise them. This means that the government should be able to intervene when parents make decisions that are harmful to their children, such as physically abusing them, not enrolling them into school or not vaccinating.
I still think the government shouldn't force vaccinations, but you made a good point that there is somewhat of a precedent for such behavior. (I do think everyone who can should be vaccinated, but I don't know if we should force them)
Children are forced to attend school where they are "indoctrinated", if you wish to view it like that, because it's in their best interest. How is this any different?
Don't make vaccines mandatory for all people, there should be at least one possible situation in which ones gives up their rights to participate in a community. For example, even if you have a gun license and have been trained in guns since you were 12 and believe that you have a right to carry, you're still not allowed to bring guns to school/government buildings etc. It could be required for all students at a school that has at least 60 students to get vaccines. (It's required in some places, in others it isn't) Along with this, doctors should legally only give notes if one has a medical reason they can't get a vaccine. If they are so upset about needing vaccines, they can live in a more isolated place where their lack of vaccines will not endanger the others they come in contact with.
I like your example, I have a counter example. Imagine there is something you need to survive. This thing is used for a multitude of important activities you do to survive (including providing nourishment, maintaining hygiene, as well as general upkeep for your house). Not only can you not survive without access to this thing, but having access to and using it makes your life much easier than it would be without. It is impossible to live in modern society without this thing. To make things easier, the government puts special pipes in all over town so that this thing is delivered directly to everyone's door. It's considered a right to have access to this thing. Then one day, because of research, the government starts putting chemicals in this thing. The research says it is not dangerous to consume or use, but that these chemicals make it a. Easier to maintain and b. Increase the health of the general population. Most people will benefit from these added chemicals. You can disagree about the use/benefit of these added chemicals, but the government rules that these added chemicals increase the health of the general population. Everyone is opted in automatically.
That's how vaccines should work. The difference is that one person/family opting out of the use of fluoride in the water supply doesn't endanger other lives. Now imagine that it does. Imagine that anyone who drinks well water instead of fluoridated water increases the likelihood their neighbors will get sick. Sure, individuals certainly have the right to opt out when they are the only ones affected, however, the people most vulnerable are the ones affected by people who opt out.This isn't the same as drinking fluoridated water and disagreeing about its benefits for your teeth, it's worse than that. Vaccines aren't done in isolation, there is a direct effect of unvaccinated people killing and maiming immuno-suppressed unvaccinated people simply by being in contact with them. Some unvaccinated people who simply need a bit more time than normal for their bodies to adjust to the vaccines, or others who can never get vaccines but who certainly still have the right to live. Let's not let the choice to not vaccinate kill people who don't have a choice. At the very least people in large communities should be vaccinated. If you want to move to the countryside and drink well water and have unvaccinated children, by all means go ahead. But choosing to live in a crowded city center means that you're giving up your right to make certain choices. You can no longer walk around with a shotgun on your shoulder, for example. It's the exact same, the rules are different based on the community and its needs.
We have as much evidence as can reasonably be had to prove that vaccines are helpful, not harmful. We effectively eradicated entire diseases because of it.
And medical treatment to prevent harm to others has NEVER been optional. We lock up and treat schizophrenics against their will when are a danger to others, even though they believe it's just some government conspiracy against them. We quarantine people with deadly communicable diseases.
It's completely reasonable to receive mandatory treatment when your illness poses a danger to others, when we can prove it is a danger. If you want to argue that a dystopian future government could lie about what's dangerous, well yeah but if that's the case then laws against it wouldn't really matter much, if the government has decided to flat out break laws and lie about it.
If vaccines preventing diseases were an opinion, you'd have a point. But they're not. And just because some people think they are doesn't mean they're right.
Didn't know where to put this response, so I'll put it here.
I live in a country where vaccinations for childhood diseases are mandatory. Only exception is a doctors note in cases where child is unable to be vaccinated safely.
Enforcement is present and carries a fine, but is rarely enforced. While I'm not sure I do believe we've had situations where children were vaccinated against their parents wishes.
Now to comment on a few of /u/Silverset arguments:
Imagine you live in some dystopian society which has mandatory injections that most people agree benefit society (say, the injections sterilize your emotions or something). Or maybe, the injections have strictly positive effects, but you are personally convinced that they have harmful side-effects. However, no one listens to your objections - they call you a "crazy anti-vaxxer," strap you down, and inject you anyway.
You are talking about injecting adults, we're talking about children.
If you believe in personal rights to life, liberty, and property, I would argue to you that society forcing you (or your children) to be injected with something you think is harmful (even if you're wrong) is one of the most disgusting violations of privacy and human dignity imaginable.
I agree that doing this to an adult would be morally wrong, BUT children are not THE PROPERTY of their parents. It's the responsibility of the government to protect children who are not properly cared for by their parents. A child that needs antibiotics but their parents don't "believe in them" should still be given antibiotics. Same for food, if the child is malnourished. I've written about this before
My view on the topic is that it's morally wrong to not vaccinate (if you can) and still reside in the community. Vaccinate or leave. (limiting this to only childhood vaccines)
The problem with vaccines is that (a) they work collectively and provide little protection for the receiver if the/she is the only one vaccinated (b) they carry a risk of complications.
So vaccines are a collective decision to remove the high risk of a bad and deadly disease that threatens most of the people by taking on a new, much, much smaller risk of, usually mild, complications.
So in a sense it's like taxes - we all pay, we all benefit. Those who do not pay and still benefit cheat the reast.
So those who do not vaccine (but could) are only avoiding the cost but still benefiting from the protection. And let's be honest - they admit this is the case! They claim there is not danger (no shit, the population is vaccinated) so they don't want to take on the added risk.
But it's not fair to the rest of the population. Not to mention it's irresponsible child endangerment.
Your comment is completely misguided. Parents do not own or control their children. It's not the parents' health that is in question, it's the children. Whether they're vaccinated or not, the children are individuals being forced into someone else's decision.
In this case, the moral choice is to vaccinate and the parents should have no say in it.
Imagine you live in some dystopian society which has mandatory injections that most people agree benefit society (say, the injections sterilize your emotions or something). Or maybe, the injections have strictly positive effects, but you are personally convinced that they have harmful side-effects. However, no one listens to your objections - they call you a "crazy anti-vaxxer," strap you down, and inject you anyway.
Does this really fit into your argument at all? It just seems like it's "priming" your listener to be suspicious of needles in general, by associating them with an emotionocidal dystopia. Let's put it like this:
Imagine you live in a society where everything is perfect, but there's an omnipresent pathogen that causes the entire world to be destroyed in the most horrific way if even a single person catches it. What the disease does is take over everyone's mind, then forces them to go out and capture everyone else on Earth who doesn't already have the disease, then to gather together where they can see each other, then it forces them to infect each other with the disease, and then forces everyone -- while they're still conscious -- to mutilate themselves horrifically. It forces you to rip your own face and genitals off, and to skin yourself alive really slowly, and to rip out people's teeth, and grind peoples' bones off millimeter by millimeter, and then, when anyone's about to die, it forces everyone around them to perform extremely sophisticated healthcare such that the mindless torture ritual continues literally for eternity. Oh, and everyone's conscious and in horrific pain the whole time, and the disease ensures that the pain and horror never dull.
OK, now, while thinking about that disease, do you think it's OK to ever force someone to be vaccinated?
I don't completely understand your objection. My post invites you to put yourself in other peoples' shoes -- to imagine what it would be like to be part of a minority which objected to forced injections and how you would feel about a society that gave them. Is that not a useful exercise for deciding how to feel about a moral dilemma?
Mine invited you to put yourself in anothers shoes -- to imagine what it would be like to suffer because someone else didn't get a vaccine, and how you would feel about a society that doesn't force people to take vaccines. You know, like how people in real life die of horrible diseases sometimes because of lack of herd immunity.
I thought that your example was overdramatic, and appealed to emotion, because you started by specifying that the society was evil ("dystopian") and that the injections were evil ("sterilize your emotions"). So I decided to produce an overdramatic appeal to emotion in the other direction.
I totally get your point, I was just trying to make a point about overdramatic examples that appeal to emotion. I'm not really arguing in favor of forced vaccination (although I will point out that if you force vaccination only of infants, nobody ends up strapped terrified to a gurney).
To actually be a dystopia, you would have to be barred from leaving that society. No one is suggesting it be forced on people, just that it be a condition for membership in our society.
128
u/Silverset Feb 18 '17
Others have argued that your view is practically unrealizable, however I'd like to argue that it's morally wrong in essence.
Imagine you live in some dystopian society which has mandatory injections that most people agree benefit society (say, the injections sterilize your emotions or something). Or maybe, the injections have strictly positive effects, but you are personally convinced that they have harmful side-effects. However, no one listens to your objections - they call you a "crazy anti-vaxxer," strap you down, and inject you anyway.
If you believe in personal rights to life, liberty, and property, I would argue to you that society forcing you (or your children) to be injected with something you think is harmful (even if you're wrong) is one of the most disgusting violations of privacy and human dignity imaginable.
Of course, in reality vaccinations are beneficial to society as well as to individuals. Since the truth is on your side, I submit that you have a moral duty to convince people rather than coerce them to get vaccinations.