No it hasn't. At least not in a way any of us here can dispute. Let's say for the sake of argument that the vaccine is 100% effective. Does that now mean I ought to take it? You've left out any argument that we ought to take things that are 100% effective at doing what they claim to do. Fact's don't simply result in moral oughts (though see Srap Tasmaner's rather clever way of achieving this in the other coronavirus thread). — Isaac
I see no evidence of that. I've provided more citations from properly qualified experts than any other poster and most contrary responses have been half-arsed clichés of reactionary defensiveness or outright spittle-flecked invective. How is that representative of a community in search of truth? — Isaac
Have you read the articles of association for the pharmaceutical companies? — Isaac
In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.
That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.
We either have “the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health decisions”, or we do not. — NOS4A2
Even if you never come near to becoming infected with the disease, and thus never come near to infecting anyone, let alone the at-risk group, — NOS4A2
I'm not following your argument at all here. None of us are experts sufficiently to judge the various facts of the case, yes? I'm with you so far. You then jump to saying that in such cases we're morally obliged to follow government policy? I don't see the link. — Isaac
If the pharmaceutical companies are predominately motivated by profit, that would nonetheless be irrelevant to the question as to whether the vaccines are safe and effective and whether mass vaccination is the only or at least the best strategy available to us. — Janus
Really, how so? Surely it speaks quite strongly to the question at (a). Does the fact that a profit-making enterprise are making an enormous profit out of a strategy not factor into that question at all? — Isaac
This is not the hypothesis I was raising, though. The idea was rather that reason could be fully determined by reason herself, by prior thoughts, goals and collected data, not by non-rational physical events. — Olivier5
It’s no surprise you’d bring up the fatuous “fire in a crowded theater” cliché, used as it was to justify jailing a man for speaking out against the draft. Anyone with “the ability to understand nuance and think analytically” knows the phrase is meaningless, not legally binding, and the underlying case was overturned back in ‘69. — NOS4A2
If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. — NOS4A2
Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. — NOS4A2
Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. — NOS4A2
“I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. — NOS4A2
What may have been a decent argument, an opportunity to further the reasoning behind taking a vaccine, quickly becomes a justification for the government to assert its power and mandate people taking them. — NOS4A2
OK, perhaps I have misunderstood you: I had thought you were claiming that the belief in the freely determining capacity of reason is compatible with the "hard determinist" dictum that all events, including thoughts and decisions, are wholly and inexorably determined by antecedentphysicalevents — Janus
As such it is completely unremarkable, on a personal level, that I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons (preferring not to take prophylactic medicine, preferring not to support the pharmaceutical industry are just two examples). I don't need to justify those preferences any more than a skydiver needs to justify his enjoyment of free-fall. — Isaac
example of skydiving — Isaac
Do you obtain the thrill of the skydiver by not taking the vaccine? — Hanover
Skydiving is a popular sport in the U.S., and in 2020, participants made approximately 2.8 million jumps at more than 200 USPA-affiliated skydiving centers across the country. In 2020, USPA recorded 11 fatal skydiving accidents, a rate of 0.39 fatalities per 100,000 jumps. This is comparable to 2019, where participants made more jumps—3.3 million—and USPA recorded 15 fatalities, a rate of 0.45 per 100,000.
Each fatality is a heartbreak for the skydiving community, which has collectively taken steps each year to learn from these events and improve the sport. Consequently, better technology, improvements to equipment and advancements in skydiver-training programs have made the sport safer than ever before.
USPA (then called the Parachute Club of America) began keeping records on annual fatalities in 1961, and that first year, PCA recorded 14 skydiving deaths. The numbers increased significantly over the next two decades, peaking in the late 1970s, when fatalities were in the 50-plus range for several years. The annual number of deaths stayed in the 30s through the 1980s and 1990s before beginning a slow, general decline after 2000. In 2018, the annual fatality count hit a record low of 13, followed by 15 in 2019. Now we’re at another record low of 11 in 2020.
Tandem skydiving—where you’re attached to an experienced skydiving instructor for your jump—has an even better safety rate, with one student fatality per 500,000 jumps on average over the past 10 years. — Untied States Parachute Association
My risk of dying from Covid even if unvaccinated is extremely small (1 in several thousand) — Isaac
If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. You’ll feel better when you let it out: “I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. — NOS4A2
3. People knowingly acting in a way that puts their health services under strain is a problem for which lack of vaccination among the otherwise healthy is dwarfed by other lifestyle choices. — Isaac
I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons (preferring not to take prophylactic medicine, preferring not to support the pharmaceutical industry are just two examples) — Isaac
I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2
Assuming that people should be able to make their own health decisions, should be able to decide what they don’t want to inject into their body, the problem with vaccine mandates is that it forces or coerces people into putting biological agents into their body that they otherwise might not want to. — NOS4A2
Assuming that people should be able to make their own health decisions, should be able to decide what they don’t want to inject into their body, the problem with vaccine mandates is that it forces or coerces people into putting biological agents into their body that they otherwise might not want to. I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2
My risk of dying from Covid even if unvaccinated is extremely small (1 in several thousand), there's no dispute about this, experts all agree here. As such it is completely unremarkable, on a personal level, that I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons — Isaac
I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should. — NOS4A2
We can’t just surrender that power because, for the time being, it only affects people we disagree with. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.