:up:

Its a good idea in principle, and I have no doubt it would work with many people, but it would likely be very costly in practice. If you started paying or rewarding people to be vaccinated, even those who were already in favour would jump on the bandwagon, and probably even those who already had been vaccinated would demand that they be paid retrospectively as well, out of fairness.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Winston Churchill. — James Riley

That's a great line!

Its a good idea in principle, and I have no doubt it would work with many people, but it would likely be very costly in practice. If you started paying or rewarding people to be vaccinated, even those who were already in favour would jump on the bandwagon, and probably even those who already had been vaccinated would demand that they be paid retrospectively as well, out of fairness. — Janus

No doubt. True colors. But how about a set fee of $10,000.00. That would be less than what it's been costing in shut down and probably way more than enough to get us to herd immunity. I can see all the Tumpettes getting in line as fast donny did.

When you put it that way, it actually begins to sound very sensible! And it probably would work, for enough people to at least get to the 70% said to be required for herd immunity.

That's a great line! — Janus

Guys like him make me think it might be safe to start drinking again. Then I remember, he probably killed more brain cells than I started out with; so I reckon I'll just stay on the wagon and appreciate his wit from a distance.

:lol:

What's most striking about this thread is the parsing of an ethical decision as if it were a calculation of odds.

↪frank
the zombie apocalypse
— frank

That's when 'the bodies pile high', isn't it? — unenlightened

The zombie apocalypse rule is that when you detect that your neighbor has been bitten, shoot them in the face. I know, I've seen a lot of the training films.

It's far from being an uncontroversial ethical issue, except maybe in the minds of those who think over-simplistically.

Has anyone actually addressed the ethics?

Any ethical choice in this must take into account the calculus of risks on either side. Of course there is also the general ethical question regarding the proper balance between individual choice and responsibility to society. It is perhaps telling that vaccination has not been mandated in any, or at least in no more one part of one that I am aware of, democratic nations.

In any case, you're welcome to start a discussion about the ethics of the issue; which would certainly be in keeping with the questions that are in the OP.

Edit: the underlined above is misinformed, see below.

Has anyone actually addressed the ethics?

You're wasting space, time and energy repeating yourself—why don't you attempt to address the ethics instead?

Actually my earlier statement regarding mandatory vaccination was ill-informed it seems:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-mandatory-vaccinations-required-countries.html

What are the arguments for and against the responsibility that individuals might be thought to bear to accept a Covid 19 vaccine? What are the arguments for and against the right that individuals might be thought to enjoy to refuse a Covid 19 vaccine? — Janus

In an argument for the vaccine, one might point to times in history that vaccines decreased or at least substantially reduced the spread of a given disease. In hopes of stopping the pandemic, one might presume that everyone ought to join in an experimental effort.

On the other hand, refusing a vaccine also has valid points. People who have had COVID can repeatedly come down with it. The coronavirus is that of the common cold and will continue to mutate; research likely will not be able to keep up nor predict the next strain. Those with some autoimmune disorders find that building immunity is impossible. In some cases, vaccines bring out even worse health issues from a previously existing autoimmune disorder.

Forcing the vaccine on everyone would be disastrous, mainly because it does put other's health at risk. It leads to the question, who's life is more valuable? Should the authorities, who do NOT know us nor our health problems, have the right to create havoc and anxiety in some, otherwise healthy, individuals' lives in order to POTENTIALLY save other sick people for a season? Should people be put at risk to soothe the rampage of the masses? Covid still seems to target the elderly, those with lung issues, or other similar issues, namely, those who are prone to other illnesses such as influenza.

Perhaps a better alternative to advocating for vaccines is to promote healthier lifestyles, which significantly reduce your chances of contracting not just COVID, but also a slew of other diseases. I have not seen one advertisement promoting exercise, reduction of sugar intake, or a balanced diet to help prevent COVID. Instead, I see people taking the easy way out by only wearing masks or promoting vaccinations instead of changing their unhealthy habits. If the authorities wanted to stop COVID, soda should be illegal, along with fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, candy, and other things that clearly impale our immune function.

You're wasting space, time and energy repeating yourself—why don't you attempt to address the ethics instead? — Janus

Allow me to re-phrase: this is a philosophy forum, not a forum for the analysis of epidemiology.

What are the philosophical considerations? Have they been addressed?

No, but a probable personal catastrophe if one accepts the COVID vaccine. — baker

Possible, yes. Probable, I don't know.

Allow me to re-phrase: this is a philosophy forum, not a forum for the analysis of epidemiology.

What are the philosophical considerations? Have they been addressed? — Banno

Lead the way then, tell us just what you think the philosophical considerations that have not been addressed are, and then show us how they can be addressed independently of any epidemiological considerations.

And by the way, Banno, the OP asks for arguments for and against individual's responsibility, and their right to refuse, to take the vaccines on offer, and I can see no reason why pragmatic as well as ethical considerations should not come into play, or even how ethical considerations can coherently be isolated from pragmatic ones.

In an argument for the vaccine, one might point to times in history that vaccines decreased or at least substantially reduced the spread of a given disease. — Ladybug

Sure, but keep in mind that the vaccines you refer to have been tested, tried and have (mostly) proven safe and effective.

People who have had COVID can repeatedly come down with it. The coronavirus is that of the common cold and will continue to mutate; research likely will not be able to keep up nor predict the next strain. — Ladybug

If that is the case, then it would seem the result would be that the vaccines will either not prove effective or they will have to be constantly tweaked, if that is possible in a timely enough fashion, and will need to be administered at least annually.

Forcing the vaccine on everyone would be disastrous, mainly because it does put other's health at risk. — Ladybug

The word "other's" here seems to make this ambiguous; can you explain?

Perhaps a better alternative to advocating for vaccines is to promote healthier lifestyles, which significantly reduce your chances of contracting not just COVID, but also a slew of other diseases. — Ladybug

Yes, I agree, and I also have not seen much promotion of proactive and positive personal health choices in all this. The cynics would say that it's not being promoted because of vested interests in junk food and that there's no money in it etc., and that governments are firmly behind so-called "big pharma" making massive profits out of this venture (which according to some accounts they already have) and that this is why alternative, some would claim, very effective therapies (the latest being ivermectin, which it is claimed is being used in many parts of India with great success) are not being promoted, or are being actively discouraged, due to there being relatively little profit to be had by the pharmaceutical industry from them.

Now I'm not saying I believe any of that, but it is certainly an alternative narrative that should not be blithely dismissed, especially if there is any truth to its reported effectiveness (spectacular results are claimed by some) in India.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/elites-worried-covid-cases-india-plummet-government-promotes-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-use/

This does not look like a very attractive site to me, given that I have little sympathy for republicanism, but neither should it be dismissed on that account for that would be to commit the "ad hominem" fallacy, and in any case political affiliations are not good or bad per se, but a matter of personal conviction. Do not demonize your opponent, because to do so is to lose your impartiality of judgement.

Also this: https://www.financialexpress.com/lifestyle/health/covid-19-states-ignore-who-recommendation-on-ivermectin-heres-what-doctor-who-wrote-white-paper-on-the-drug-has-to-say/2231596/

*ding*ding* :)

they are individualists, and they should be FORCED to be cut off from all the amenities of living in a society, if they believe that their rights trump the needs of society. — god must be atheist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

You know I just happened to learn yesterday that China will now allow married couples to have three children. That's an increase from the two they were formerly allowed to have, which is itself an increase from the one kid they used to be allowed to have.

Based on your viewpoint, I assume you wholeheartedly support the right of the government to control who may reproduce and how many offspring they may have.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57303592

And of course, "My body, my choice" is the supreme maxim of the individual. But the State has ultimate authority over the reproductive facilities of its subjects, I assume you would agree. If the State bans abortion, you must obey. If the State requires abortion, as China does once you've had the allowed number of offspring, you must obey.

Perhaps you would care to put your authoritarianism into context, lest I misunderstand you.

Or do I perhaps understand you far too well?

What are the arguments for and against the responsibility that individuals might be thought to bear to accept a Covid 19 vaccine? What are the arguments for and against the right that individuals might be thought to enjoy to refuse a Covid 19 vaccine? — Janus

Anti-vaccination isn't really an individual position: it's a social phenomenon gestated among the paranoid, the insane, and the terminally stupid. Most anti-vaxxers wouldn't be anti-vaxxers if there wasn't a small but thriving anti-vaxxer movement. So it's more like a contract or a club: a group of foam-at-the-mouth right-wing lunatics who agree via the media that they'd rather die than behave with a minimal responsibility toward others cuz that's jus a step shy of communism. And I think we should support their efforts without irony. When the sensible and responsible are all vaccinated, we should oversell tickets to anti-vax and anti-mask rallies and let Darwin handle the rest. ;)

You know I just happened to learn yesterday that China will now allow married couples to have three children. That's an increase from the two they were formerly allowed to have, which is itself an increase from the one kid they used to be allowed to have.

Based on your viewpoint, I assume you wholeheartedly support the right of the government to control who may reproduce and how many offspring they may have. — fishfry

This is a huge, huge, huge lie. Chinese families had more than two children on the average per two parents. This is so easy to prove that you will fall off the chair.

Hungary has had a less-than-two-children society. Not because of enforcement, but due to parents' choice. This resulted first in a stagnation per number in the society, which in the last decade started to dwindle.

If, and only if, Chinese families had one or two children, like you and the rest of the math-stupid people claim, their numbers would have equalled the growth rate of Hungary. Because you guys with a North American education can't conceptualize the truth, that it does not matter whether you have a thousand people or a thousand billion, if each parent has two children, the growth rate should stay stagnant.

But you and a billion other math-imbecilic people can't understand this. You are blinded by the huge population of China, so to you it's no surprise that in sixty years China has doubled its population, going on fast to tripling it.

The Chinese are shrewd, and they know math. And they know the rest of the world hates math. This was a ridiculously easy sell for them.

So don't give me this crap that that the Chinese forced their population to have one, later only two children. This is a myth they threw in your face, my friend, and you bought it as it were cupcakes.

Perhaps you would care to put your authoritarianism into context, lest I misunderstand you.

Or do I perhaps understand you far too well? — fishfry

You seem to understand nothing that is farther away from you than the tip of your nose. Please see above for the support of my claim.

The fact that you label anyone who has reservations about receiving an inadequately tested vaccine as a paranoid anti-vaxxer shows that you are not capable of rational argument or balanced views, so I'll leave you to your rabid fantasies.

Has anyone actually addressed the ethics? — Banno

No. This is an interesting discussion and confirms that tribalism is almost unassailable.

I would have thought that working together to prevent the spread of a virus via masks and vaccination would mean that people will die in far fewer numbers.

The significant barriers to this are clearly the positions people hold on government and freedom and what counts as evidence.

Much as I had supposed. Partisan bullshit predominates.

The fact that you label anyone who has reservations about receiving an inadequately tested vaccine as a paranoid anti-vaxxer shows that you are not capable of rational argument or balanced views, so I'll leave you to your rabid fantasies. — Janus

Except you didn't. Also, I cited paranoia as an example among others, not the unifying trait. There's also insane people and idiots, remember? But tbh anyone who wilfully puts others in harm's way is not someone whose wrong opinion on other matters will rob me of much sleep.

I would have thought that working together to prevent the spread of a virus via masks and vaccination would mean that people will die in far fewer numbers.

The significant barriers to this are clearly the positions people hold on government and freedom and what counts as evidence. — Tom Storm

On any major ethical issue, there is always vocal, indeed strident opposition to implementing change for ethical reasons, sometimes for maintenance of personal advantage, sometimes misguided antisocial principle. Slavery, colonialism, suffrage, civil rights, environmentalism... It seems so obvious to many that there is a clear ethical path that it's stupendous that so many would disagree.

Here's the thing: these people do not give a rat's arse who they hurt. They didn't care about the plight of slaves, the right to self-determination, the rights of women and other marginalised demographics, or whether they leave the world as a burning husk. And they sure as hell don't care if their need to feel special kills a bunch of people.

This is a huge, huge, huge lie. Chinese families had more than two children on the average per two parents. This is so easy to prove that you will fall off the chair. — god must be atheist

I can only go by the published literature on the subject. Perhaps you can point me to references to the contrary, in which case I will thank you for the correction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Hungary has had a less-than-two-children society. Not because of enforcement, but due to parents' choice. This resulted first in a stagnation per number in the society, which in the last decade started to dwindle. — god must be atheist

Can you see the profound distinction between parents' choice and government edict? That's the subject at hand: Statism versus liberty. Collectivism, which you seem to favor, versus individualism, which I favor.

If, and only if, Chinese families had one or two children, like you and the rest of the math-stupid people claim, their numbers would have equalled the growth rate of Hungary. Because you guys with a North American education can't conceptualize the truth, that it does not matter whether you have a thousand people or a thousand billion, if each parent has two children, the growth rate should stay stagnant. — god must be atheist

I'd be grateful for references. I've been reading about China's population control measures for decades. If the literature is wrong, or if there's alternative literature that I should be aware of, I would be happy to be educated on the subject. Of course "educated" is not the same as insulted, so if you can manage the former instead of the latter, have at it. Of course if you prefer to play the insult game I can do that too, but I find it tedious. Mostly when posters resort to insults, I just stop responding to them.

But you and a billion other math-imbecilic people can't understand this. You are blinded by the huge population of China, so to you it's no surprise that in sixty years China has doubled its population, going on fast to tripling it. — god must be atheist

If they've doubled their population in 60 years, by the rule of 72 that's a pretty low rate of population increase. Even if they tripled it it's a pretty low rate of increase. Perhaps you can run the numbers, since my pretty little head isn't capable of doing so.

The Chinese are shrewd, and they know math. And they know the rest of the world hates math. This was a ridiculously easy sell for them. — god must be atheist

I'm totally confused. First, the conversation you and I were having was between collectivism and individuality; authoritarianism and libertarianism. The State versus the individual. This is an ancient and vibrant debate that goes back to the ancient philosophers. I'm glad to have the conversation with you.

But now you are claiming that China apparently does NOT and never has had strict limitations on reproduction; yet nevertheless their annual population growth rate, obtained from doubling the population in 60 years, amounts to 72/60, or 1.2% per year. That seems LOW, not high. If, of course, I managed to do the math right. But maybe you can correct me on that.

So your entire post doesn't make sense.

So don't give me this crap that that the Chinese forced their population to have one, later only two children. This is a myth they threw in your face, my friend, and you bought it as it were cupcakes. — god must be atheist

Perhaps you can go over and straighten out Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

And Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy

And Investopedia.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120114/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy.asp

etc.

As I say, I'd be grateful to be educated on this topic if the sources I've been reading for decades are wrong.

And again, the original convo was the State versus the individual. You are claiming China is all-in for liberty and individuality? Really? You have a hard sell, but I have an open mind. Make your case.