But what about them preffering going to a disco? What if that emotion is considered? Is it worse, because selfish? Is being selfish bad? — Prishon

Can we say that it is myopic? Perspective is what makes things that are close seem bigger than those that are far away; folly, is thinking it is really so. Selfishness presumes it is so. Selfishness is folly.

Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't?

Do you honestly think your life is so saintly I couldn't find a half dozen things you do which risk others and which people smarter than you have recommended to avoid? — Isaac

I know that society, and people smarter than you, make the call. There was a day, a long time ago, where drinking and driving was not taboo, or as taboo. People were advised not to do it by people who were smarter than them. But, because some inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish people refused to take the advice and continued to drive drunk and kill people, society, and people smarter than you, decided to drop the polite request and make it a law. Even then, it was downplayed until MADD and victims of the selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful drunks turned up the heat and made pariahs out of the drunks.

So here's the short answer to your question: There are X number of things that society says are acceptable, and Y number of things they say are not. Society says avoiding the vax is not acceptable. Granted, they have not done what they can, and probably will do if people like you don't step up, but that does not mean they are wrong just because you, a non-expert, can poo poo their efforts on the internet.

As a selfish, disrespectful, inconsiderate person, you obviously don't have the inclination to actually go to school, get the creds and the experience to know what the CDC knows, and then engage them on the merits of the issue. That wouldn't be a bad thing if you weren't running around pretending that you know and understand the issue better than they do, and then you dissuade folks from playing ball. You are playing a doctor on the internet. You are a charlatan. A snake oil salesman.

Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't? — Tzeentch

It all depends on where you place the baseline. The baseline is participating in public life. Discos didn't come along until much later. Nor are they a right. They are, instead, a privilege.

So here's the short answer to your question: There are X number of things that society says are acceptable, and Y number of things they say are not. Society says avoiding the vax is not acceptable. — James Riley

That wasn't the question. The question was whether you avoid all things that people smarter than you recommend you avoid for the benefit other's well-being? I'm aware society thinks one of those things is getting vaccinated, I'm asking you about the others, do you feel the same way about all of them, do you comply with all of them?

Health and safety regimens at work?
Good dietary advice for children and dependants (if you have any)?
Advice on reducing your waste, pollutants and energy consumption?
Advice on product selection to avoid conflict minerals, modern slavery and other harmful practices?
I could go on... All recommendations by people smarter than you to prevent harm to others. do you comply with them all?

Why is the baseline at participation in public life? And why is participation not a luxury like discos?

A small bit of information from the country I live in was recently released: a report done for the government to evaluate the effects of a lockdown estimated the amount of healthy life years to be saved by the covid measures to be 100,000. The amount lost was estimated around 520,000.

Perhaps not directly related, but something to think about.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether you avoid all things that people smarter than you recommend you avoid for the benefit other's well-being? I'm aware society thinks one of those things is getting vaccinated, I'm asking you about the others, do you feel the same way about all of them, do you comply with all of them? — Isaac

I do. I not only use my own intelligence, experience and wisdom in an effort to avoid harming others, but I likewise take the advice, requests, recommendations and outright legal demands of the state into consideration. I know there are others, smarter than me, that say I should slow down when approaching this or that curve that I am not familiar with. But I will use my own, commensurate judgement when approaching a curve that I know well. And, as an occasional risk-taker, I often do this only out of consideration for others. I might risk myself, but I try to respect others.

Let's try an example: While I don't smoke, I could. Society says I can. But they place limits on it. They don't place those limits for my own good. They place those limits due to expenses incurred by others due to my selfish acts. But I can still smoke. I just have to keep my smoke out of other people's lungs. And I have to pay a shit ton of taxed to try and cover the added burden to the healthcare system. Yet I get to drive and pump poison into the air with my car. I breath it and so do asthmatics I don't even know. Now you might come along with your awesome intellect and try to dissect the science and prove how the state is all wrong on this or that. But your opinion doesn't matter. You aren't among the scientist that know, or who inform policy.

Why is the baseline at participation in public life? And why is participation not a luxury like discos? — Tzeentch

Because anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists and other experts have shown that man is a social creature. A pack animal, if you will. Public life has been there since the cave and before. Discos, not so much.

Perhaps not directly related, but something to think about. — Tzeentch

That is something for you to think about. However, it's like the information that Isaac might try to school me with. It's out of my wheelhouse. Here's my wheelhouse: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html Could they be wrong? Oh hell yes. Government is often wrong. But unless and until peer professionals take them down, I'll roll with them.

Why is wanting to go to the disco selfish, and wanting to participate in public life (even though you're afraid that getting coughed on kills you) isn't? — Tzeentch

I've no idea. I didn't think that was the case. Do you have a problem distinguishing selfish and unselfish?

I do — James Riley

Bullshit. Unless you're Greta fucking Thunberg, you do not comply with every single recommendation made to limit risk of harm to others. If you're just going to brazenly stand by that claim there's little point in continuing.

Let's try and example: While I don't smoke, I could. Society says I can. — James Riley

Society says I can avoid getting vaccinated, there's no law against it. It's just recommended that I do. It is recommended that you don't smoke.

I get to drive and pump poison into the air with my car. I breath it and so do asthmatics I don't even know. Now you might come along with your awesome intellect and try to dissect the science and prove how the state is all wrong on this or that. — James Riley

I don't need to, I can cite the state's recommendations on the matter of air pollution, car choice, driving choices, and all manner of other stuff you routinely do. We're talking about recommendations here, not laws.

I think taking it is myopic. It gives weak future offspring. When not dead...

It gives weak future offspring. — Prishon

"It" what? Evidence? Reasoning? Any justification or support at all?

Bullshit. Unless you're Greta fucking Thunberg, you do not comply with every single recommendation made to limit risk of harm to others. If you're just going to brazenly stand by that claim there's little point in continuing. — Isaac

Apparently you are incapable of understanding argument. Let me try to dumb it down for you one more time. Here, hold my hand: Society has made judgement calls about what is suggested, what is requested, what is required, and what is demanded. I play ball within those confines and use them for guidance in my consideration of others. I also understand that if I don't, those steps the state uses can, and most probably will be stepped up. Do you see the answer to your question yet? I do risk others within the confines of the law, and my own respect and consideration of others.

I risk others when I get behind the wheel. But society has said that the risk my driving poses to other people is an acceptable risk. Society has NOT said that you not vaxing is an acceptable risk. Get it? No? Sorry, I don't know how to tell you that you should care about other people.

Society will allow smoking and drinking to protect the interests of those who work in the tobacco and alcohol industries and to respect the freedom of individuals to smoke and drink. Society makes that call, knowing full well that innocent lives will be adversely impacted or even lost. And taxpayers will often have to pick up the bill, or insurance premiums will increase. So, if society tells me that smoking harms not only me, but others, they still let me smoke becausethe calculation was made that I could. I can't, however, exhale my smoke into your face. I suppose I could pull some science paper that says it's okay for me to blow smoke in your face, but I'm not that kind of person.

So, in this gradient, with vaccines, we are at the request stage. You don't have to vax. Happy? But if you don't, don't be surprised if the state starts climbing up the ladder. And don't be surprised if people start treating you like a POS.

It" what? Evidence? Reasoning? Any justification or support at all? — unenlightened

Gut feeling

I play ball within those confines and use them for guidance in my consideration of others. I also understand that if I don't, those steps the state uses can, and most probably will be stepped up. Do you see the answer to your question yet? I do risk others within the confines of the law, and my own respect and consideration of others. — James Riley

Exactly. So all your moralising about people smarter than me was all bullshit. You don't listen unconditionally to the people smarter than you either. We could agree here, but then you say...

don't be surprised if people start treating you like a POS. — James Riley

So do you think all people, including yourself, who don't comply with state recommendations (not laws yet, just recommendations) should be treated like POS's

Here's some examples of state recommendations for your country.

Here are the EPA recommendations on recycling - comply with all of them?

Here's their green vehicle guide - got the full set there too?

Here's the guidance of chemical use - another full house I assume?

Here's energy use - you ought to get some sort of prize.

Environmental issues not deadly enough for you?

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

https://www.who.int/health-topics/environmental-health#tab=tab_1

NSW (Australia) is about to hit 1,000 daily cases, probably (today's number was 919). Still, Florida USA, similar population, is hitting around 21,000 per day, with 42,000 deaths (Australia has had 924 fatalities to date.) I guess the libertarians think that the Florida numbers are better, on account of death and serious illness is nobody's business, or that lockdowns are bad for busines. Or something of the kind. But it does seem to me that many on the 'right' are indifferent to human suffering and that trying to prevent it should always take a back seat to individual rights. (There's a comparison here.)

I'm not sure where the idea of totalitarianism as a life-saving mechanism came into the public consciousness, but it appears to be regnant in some circles. Granted, it makes sense that if we put everyone under house arrest and turn a nation into a hermit kingdom they get the benefit of being protected from an infectious disease, but the adverse effects of restricting life, many of them as yet unknowable, will also have far-reaching and dire implications, especially among those who are not wealthy enough to retreat into a comfortable Netflix/Amazon livelihood whenever they choose.

So while you can say I am indifferent to suffering resulting from an infectious disease, I can say that you're indifferent to the effects of totalitarianism on children, the poor, mental health, human rights, the abused, and so on. I don't think we should play that game, personally.

Exactly. So all your moralising about people smarter than me was all bullshit. You don't listen unconditionally to the people smarter than you either. we could agree here, but then you say... — Isaac

It is difficult to argue with those (you, for example) who love the illogical, two-valued, dualistic thinking. My moralizing about people smarter than you is not bullshit. As I taught you some time ago, but you forgot your lessons (take notes and pay attention, son) Society (and politicians) formulate health policy based on evidence and science. I do listen to people smarter than me. I also use my own experience in guiding my daily interactions with my fellow man. I don't know what point you think you scored, but you just stepped on your dick again. LOL!

Regarding some of the examples you provided, particularly those that involve the environment, I would like to take this opportunity to teach you another lesson. Pull up a chair.

I want clean air. I want government to force people to stop using petroleum hydrocarbons. I make the argument. Someone who disagrees with me (you?) says I am a hypocrite, and should be marginalized, and not listened to, because I, myself, drive a car. At first blush, I think that sounds persuasive, at least to stupid people who don't understand markets.

So, in order try and be "consistent" I conserve a gallon of gas by not driving. Good so far, right? The problem is, I just increased the supply of gas, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, which encourages people like you to drive more, defeating my goal. Hmmm. What to do, what to do?

Well, we do what we always do when something requires government to get something done; something where individuals, and the private sector can't handle it alone. We ask, we plead, we cajole. But if the public (as expressed through their government) want something done and you stand in the way, you must learn to accept personal responsibility for your own actions, or inactions. Part of that could be ostracization and marginalization. And it could also result in a stepping up of government efforts to get the job done.

You may very well be treated like a POS. But again, since you can't seem to handle nuance, let me try to simplify it again for you: There are gradients and some things are tolerated with more forbearance than others, based on the judgements of people that are smarter than you. I won't fall into your "poor eating habits" vs vax straw man. It is irrelevant. Society will determine if and when you get treated like a POS and for what reasons. You just have to take personal responsibility for your own actions, whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, others might likewise suffer. Hence the treatment you get.

Gut feeling — Prishon

Yeah, "I feel that ..." is a common locution. But in the context of a discussion that is distinguishing feeling from reason, it's a cop-out and confusion. So you ought to distinguish the gut feeling of confidence, approval, happiness, or whatever it is, from the fact that the feeling is about.

Society (and politicians) formulate health policy based on evidence and science. I do listen to people smarter than me. I also use my own experience in guiding my daily interactions with my fellow man. — James Riley

I just listed a whole load of policies which you clearly don't take their word as gospel. I do exactly the same with vaccination guidance, yet you think that's immoral, you've yet to explain why.

The problem is, I just increased the supply of gas, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, which encourages people like you to drive more, defeating my goal. — James Riley

Defying government advice by using some half-baked idea about markets. Are you a fully qualified government employed economist? If not, then why are you making judgements contrary to those people smarter than you have made?

I won't fall into your "poor eating habits" vs vax straw man. It is irrelevant. Society will determine if and when you get treated like a POS and for what reasons — James Riley

So now 'society' is right no matter what their reasons? Your ethics are intriguing to say the least.

Gut feeling — Prishon

Allright. If the defense system is fooled by a vaccine it says: WTF? Next time she wont be so cooperating.

Evidence? Reasoning? Any justification or support at all? — unenlightened

Gut feelings, by their very Nature, are not based on conscious rationality. There are no arguments, no reasons, no ratio, no whatever consciohs aspects behind it. Therd are multiple unconscious foundations though.

I just listed a whole load of policies which you clearly don't take their word as gospel. I do exactly the same with vaccination guidance, yet you think that's immoral, you've yet to explain why. — Isaac

First, I'd rather you think on your own two feet. One wag on this site once linked an article that went on forever, I read it, and found it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. You can just say "X" and we'll take it from there. I did see one of links headlines said something about air quality, so I ran with that and made a point without having to read the thing. If you are capable of saying that I don't take their word as gospel, then just use your own typing skills and say what it is that I don't take as gospel. Here, let me give you an example: "James, society says X and you clearly don't do X." Then we can argue whether you are correct or not. As it stands, your empty, balled face statement that "clearly you don't" is meaningless. Especially given the gradients of social risk balancing that I taught you about.

Defying government advice by using some half-baked idea about markets. Are you a fully qualified government employed economist? If not, then why are you making judgements contrary to those people smarter than you have made? — Isaac

I'm not! That's the point! Stop, think, you are on the verge of a breakthrough, Isaac! I can see it! Keep cogitating on what you just said, then apply what I actually said. There you go! Whew, what a long slog this has been.

So now 'society' is right no matter what their reasons? Your ethics are intriguing to say the least. — Isaac

LOL! Oh, hell no! I've got more truck with society than Carter has pills. But I don't go around advising people to do, or not do things which experts say will place others at risk. Especially when I can't hold a candle to the experts or their counsel, upon which society has based it's policy. If I want to be a BTDT, then I'll go there and do that. I won't be a poser.

Because anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists and other experts have shown that man is a social creature. A pack animal, if you will. Public life has been there since the cave and before. Discos, not so much. — James Riley

Well, even someone who doesn't partake in public life can still be social, but in their private lives.

Well, even someone who doesn't partake in public life can still be social, but in their private lives. — Tzeentch

True that. I think those that don't want to vax, and all those they socialize with, should do just that. If any of them want to come out and mingle with the pack, they should abide the pack's polite, simple, non-impositional request. Simple courtesy.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the miniscule percentage of the population that runs a risk of getting seriously ill from covid to make that sacrifice? I think it does.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the miniscule percentage of the population that runs a risk of getting seriously ill from covid to make that sacrifice? I think it does. — Tzeentch

First of all, we'd have to define "miniscule." 600k dead in the U.S alone, not including those who just get sick, and the tapping of health care resources, and those who died "off the grid" and those who died or suffered because they couldn't get a bed. That can all raise the anti. Further, we could consider an unknown number of lives saved by those who did distance, mask and vax. How many of them would be added to the tally?

I don't think so. Neither does the ADA, etc. We err on the side of caring for other people, especially the sick, lame and lazy.

Could we roll with the disco? Hell yes. We did it during the Spanish Flu. The bubonic plague, etc. But even then, the rich would social distance to protect themselves. We're trying to be a little more egalitarian here. Besides, all we're asking is to avoid the disco for a while. Had every one done that from the get-go, we would not be in the pickle we are in now. We'd all be back in the disco, if that's your thing. Hell, it's just a small ask.

just use your own typing skills and say what it is that I don't take as gospel. Here, let me give you an example: "James, society says X and you clearly don't do X." Then we can argue whether you are correct or not — James Riley

I'm just not prepared to do that. The point of the citations was to point out the clear insanity of the claim that you comply with every single state recommendation. I really wasn't expecting your craziness to stoop to doubling down on the claim. That's why I said before, if you're serious about defending the claim that you adhere without question to every single government recommendation then this conversation is over. I've nothing to say in the face of such brazen delusion.

I'm not! — James Riley

That's exactly what you're doing. You gave a pseudo-intellectual economic argument which you obviously don't understand as to why you needn't comply with a particular government recommendation. You're not an expert economist so why present the argument as if you understood it... smarter minds than you an' all... Just shut up and follow the recommendations.

I don't go around advising people to do, or not do things which experts say will place others at risk. — James Riley

You just did. Experts say cut down in gas use, you present some neolib, half-cocked pseudo-economics denying you ought to.

It matters a lot which of the contributory factors we try to eliminate. Could you really say that an efficient way of handling public health is to maintain a population with a very high level of completely preventable life threatening diseases and then have to commit to mass vaccinations of every novel virus to keep them alive? Or is it more efficient to invest in community healthcare, sporting facilities, restrict sales of unhealthy foods etc and next decade not have such a vulnerable population in the first place? — Isaac

What position is this argument in support of? "We should have behaved differently in the past" is not a policy, not even a public health policy. Whether we should do something about other issues plaguing the health of Americans is not a question -- it's what public health officials spent their time doing before the novel coronavirus came calling. What should they do now?

You're not arguing that "coronavirus isn't that bad", despite trotting out the co-morbidities.
You're not arguing that we should do nothing -- you mask and distance and so forth.
You're not arguing that vaccines are ineffective or worse, and in fact richer countries should be sending more to poorer countries, and so not arguing that no one should get vaccinated.
You're only arguing that not everyone needs to get vaccinated, is that right? Not even that no one needs to get vaccinated, only that not everyone needs to.

But I suppose we all more or less agree on that, right? Public Health officials have (mostly) been setting targets somewhat below 100%, informed I presume by what epidemiologists tell them, so what's the beef?

Anyone who gets vaccinated contributes to their community reaching the threshold set by the relevant public health agency. As far as I can see, the only question that interests you is whether that entails that:

(M) Individuals are morally obligated to get vaccinated

in order to help their community reach its vaccination goal, and leaving aside whether that moral obligation trumps other reasons an individual may have for not getting vaccinated.

A broader view might not look just at individuals but at communities, worldwide. For Peoria to go from 0% to 70%, it must pass through all the sub-goals in between. Perhaps we could say the same for American states or counties: the goal is not to get to, say, 70% overall, which could mean 100% in California and 20% in Arkansas, but first to 10% in every state, then 20% in every state, and so on. Similarly for the whole world: our goal is not to get Canada to 100% while Nigeria is at 10%.

That's reasonable. It's probably the right policy, I don't know. It's also not clear it connects to (M) up there. Are you only morally obligated to get the vaccine if your community has not yet hit the current all-communities target? Only if your community is behind the current average? What if you're ahead of the average in progress toward the goal but not there yet (almost everywhere, the United States, for instance)? Should whether you're obligated depend so much on time? That is, maybe your community doesn't need you to step up now, but they will in a few weeks; are you under no obligation currently but will be? now under a future obligation? what?

This all seems sliced a little thin. For an individual, getting vaccinated if you have the opportunity to do so unquestionably helps your community reach its goal, so the simplest thing to do, if you support that goal, is get vaccinated.

But

Is an individual under a moral obligation to take action to further goals they support?

People don't usually need much prodding, moral or otherwise, to do what they want, so there must be something else going on here. There's garden-variety hypocrisy, "talk is cheap", that sort of thing. You may say you want something or other to be different but you do nothing about it, and in fact behave in a way that props up the status quo. That doesn't look all that relevant here.

I think you might want to answer "no" there, but I don't know why, and I don't know why it's even a question. It feels like "no" is actually the answer to a different question, namely:

Are there circumstances in which an individual is under a moral obligation to take action to further goals they do not support?

Because in between there's a step:

I support this goal, but not this way of reaching it.

which is not so unusual.

"I support making our society more just, but not if the means of getting there is unjust" (so many ways to fill that one in, I'm punting)
"I support winning the war, but I do not support me fighting in it"
"I support worldwide herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but not me getting vaccinated"

Is any of this in the neighborhood of your thinking?

First of all, we'd have to define "miniscule." 600k dead in the U.S alone, — James Riley

Roughly 0.2%, no?

Roughly 0.2%, no? — Tzeentch

I don't know, I haven't done the math. But I know it's way more than those killed by guns. Regardless, you cherry picked the 600k without factoring in all the other shit I mentioned.