Well I don't think there is a right to health care. — Bartricks

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the perps staying home, whether they want to or not. Good.

How about if my vaxxed wife needs a bed and a vent some reason; can I go in and clear a bed from some POS anti-vaxxer who's sick with Covid? He's got no right to be there, right? Can I compel the Dr. to treat her? Health care is not a right, so I suppose I could pay to have the POS tossed?

Here's the deal: You and I disagree. I already owned up to NOS that I am his (and your) worst nightmare when it comes to the state wielding it's power like a fucking sledge hammer on this issue. I'd support the state if it branded a forehead with a "T", put an antivaxxer on a train, take them to a camp where work will set them free. And you know why? It has nothing to do with covid or a fear of covid. Rather, it has to do with my subjective perception of the type of people who would jeopardize the health of others for no other reason than to be an obstinate, petulant, disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, rights-wielding child who just thinks he's a rebel defending some righteous cause of Locke or whoever.

If there is a good anti-vaxxer out there, I'm sorry, but they are forever branded by Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones and their type. How does it go: Guilt by association? Yeah, that's it. GO GOVERNMENT!

Time for bed. Discuss among yourselves.

No, Riled-up, it is 'ethicists' we should be listening to. — Bartricks

No, it’s doctors we should be listening to. Mostly virologists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc.

What’s “riled-up” mean here?

Ethicists are experts on what it is right or wrong to do. Doctors are not. — Bartricks

Doctors don’t consult “ethicists” in the ER. Medical ethicists — like Art Kaplan — are useful for tricky issues, but it’s usually very clear what is to be done. If someone is rushed in and needs surgery to live, you give them surgery. You don’t consult an ethicist about whether it’s right or wrong.

Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.

This is simply incorrect.
— Xtrix

Explain. Is the vaccine effective? If it is, then they're not posing a risk to the vaccinated. If it is not effective, then yes - I agree, they're posing a risk to everyone. But then there's no point in forcing people to take an ineffective vaccine. — Bartricks

This is really your reasoning?

Did you say you were an “ethicist”?

And they're not ethicists, so perhaps they don't understand the ethical significance of this issue. — Bartricks

Or perhaps you don’t understand medicine or virology— which is in fact the case, given what you’ve said so far.

There’s a reason doctors get more respect and prestige than philosophers. I sense you’re a little perturbed but this.

No, it’s doctors we should be listening to. Mostly virologists, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, etc. — Xtrix

Oh, okay then. Good point. On an ethical issue - so an issue to do with what it is right or wrong to do - we should not listen to ethicists, but those with no expertise in ethics. Good one. Good point. You're on fire. (Incidentally, if you're on fire, the best person to call would be a plasterer).

What’s “riled-up” mean here? — Xtrix

I was responding to Riley and had decided to call him 'Riled-up' as that's the effect my arguments seemed to be having on him.

Doctors don’t consult “ethicists” in the ER. — Xtrix

So? Maybe they should. Also, there are medical ethics committees and those have ethicists on them. But anyway, what's your point? That what actually happens, just by dint of it happening, is right? That's not something a professional ethicist would think.

Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations. — Xtrix

Really. Who? I suspect that the only ethicist you've read on this is me. Willing to stand corrected, of course. But they'll have arguments for their view.....which is something you don't seem to have provided me with.

Yes. My smoking example is a good one.

What happens when someone smokes in a restaurant, however? Why is that against the law? Why do restaurants have bans on them? Are they unjust? — Xtrix

Oh, okay then. Good point. On an ethical issue - so an issue to do with what it is right or wrong to do - we should not listen to ethicists, but those with no expertise in ethics. — Bartricks

We should — provided they understand the medical facts. Medical ethicists usually do. You — whatever you are — clearly do not. So your advice about what to do is, thus, misguided — as I’ve stated before.

Should we ban smoking on airplanes and restaurants? If we think smoking is harmless for everyone besides the smoker, the ethicist will say “No, we shouldn’t ban smoking.”

That ethicist would be wrong. Why? Because second hand smoke is indeed harmful to others.

Also, there are medical ethics committees and those have ethicists on them. — Bartricks

Sure. I have nothing against ethicists.

Incidentally, medical ethicists I’ve read are in agreement about vaccinations.
— Xtrix

Really. Who? — Bartricks

I mentioned one already, who I’m sure you’re familiar with: Art Caplan. A medical ethicist. He’s strongly in favor of mandates. But that’s because he understands vaccines and the goals of vaccinations.

But they'll have arguments for their view.....which is something you don't seem to have provided me with. — Bartricks

I have, but you seem to be ignoring a great deal if them.

Your statements about how people taking the vaccine shouldn’t be effected by what unvaccinated people do leads me to believe you really haven’t researched this deeply enough. I think reading Caplan is as good a place as any to start.

Vaccine Mandates Aren’t Enough. Make Unvaccinated People Pay if They Harm Others.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/coronavirus-vaccine-mask-mandate-unvaccinated-51627939803

“Choices have consequences. Personal responsibility matters. Want to reject expert opinion and the established facts about Covid and put yourself and others at risk? Then you should pay, if your choice harms others.”


If you’re interested.

This is really your reasoning?

Did you say you were an “ethicist”? — Xtrix

You can't refute me by simply expressing surprise at what I am saying.

There’s a reason doctors get more respect and prestige than philosophers. I sense you’re a little perturbed but this. — Xtrix

They're just glorified plumbers. I think you'll find Socrates, Plato and Aristotle enjoy a little bit more respect and prestige than your average medical doctor. But whatever; the important point is that my dad is bigger than your dad.

I mentioned one already, who I’m sure you’re familiar with: Art Caplan. A medical ethicist. He’s strongly in favor of mandates. But that’s because he understands vaccines and the goals of vaccinations. — Xtrix

So, do you respect the views of ethicists or not? Or is it only when they say something you already agree with that you respect them? I am unclear what your position is.

And what argument do you have? This is a philosophy forum - I've argued, you haven't. What's your argument?

So, do you respect the views of ethicists or not? Or is it only when they say something you already agree with that you respect them? I am unclear what your position is. — Bartricks

I respect them if they deserve it, for example by demonstrating a basic understanding of medicine and vaccines.

But not their expertise in ethics? You seem very confused to me. I am an ethicist. You haven't said anything - anything - to challenge anything I've argued. You've just said 'science' a lot as if that'll somehow constitute an argument.

Now, as for that article you linked to: did you read it yourself? (I have just had the displeasure of reading it - and it is poor, though allowance has to be made for the fact it is a popular piece). Given its contents, I am not convinced you have.

And what argument do you have? This is a philosophy forum - I've argued, you haven't. What's your argument? — Bartricks

I’ve argued as well. Claiming I haven’t doesn’t change it. The responses are there, on record.

I argue in favor of mandates. I argue why I’m in favor of mandates.

I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand.

Lastly, and also ignored: we have had school and workplace vaccines requirements for DECADES. What do you make on those? Ethical— not ethical?

But not their expertise in ethics? — Bartricks

Whatever that may be, I’m in favor of it.

I’m not in favor of demonstrably wrong suggestions based on misunderstanding science.

You haven't said anything - anything - to challenge anything I've argued. — Bartricks

I have— several times. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. I’ll gladly repeat myself if you’d like.

Now, as for that article you linked to: did you read it yourself? — Bartricks

I have. I also quoted from it a little.

I have. I also quoted from it a little. — Xtrix

So you picked up that he wasn't arguing for making people vaccinate. He was arguing that people should pay the costs of their choices. That's different. I agree with that. Wholeheartedly.

Do you? I mean, I assume you do. And so I assume you agree that those who wish to be vaccinated should pay for the vaccine - and pay the proper cost, not the cost as subsidized by those who do not wish to be vaccinated. Or is it only some who should pay the costs of their choices?

THe sick should pay the costs of treating their sickness, yes? If you get sick through no fault of mine, then you should pay. Not me. Not anyone else (not involuntarily, anyway). You.

Different if it's my fault. But if it is not, do you agree that you should pay?

Do you agree with that? I do. It seems he does too. Do you? I just want to explore the logic of Dr Caplan - for it seems to me to bear closer resemblance to mine that it does to yours.

So you picked up that he wasn't arguing for making people vaccinate. — Bartricks

No one is arguing for that, as I said at the beginning. These mandates are not legal. You still have a choice— even if you view it as unfair, it’s still a choice. Besides, we have school mandates already.

It’s unjust to force people not to smoke — or even not to do drugs, in my view. It’s just to prevent them from smoking in restaurants.

I won’t let you dodge this: Do you agree with school vaccine mandates or not? Smoking bans?

Dr Caplan - for it seems to me to bear closer resemblance to mine that it does to yours. — Bartricks

“In this situation, those who do not vaccinate are not just risking their health, but putting others at risk of a disease that can harm and kill them. The unvaccinated include children who cannot be vaccinated, those who have access barriers, and vaccine refusers. Further, in those with immune disorders—or people with, for example, cancer—vaccine effectiveness is lower. The intentionally unvaccinated are also delaying the point at which we can resume prepandemic life, by prolonging the pandemic and creating a real risk of more variants emerging, including variants for which current vaccines would perhaps be less effective.

One solution that some cities and states are seizing upon are mandates that limit the ability of those who choose not to vaccinate to risk others, by requiring vaccines as a condition for certain jobs or to attend university. We have no great choice here: limit liberty, or lose lives and lose liberty in the long-term, as the disease rages.

But there are other policy options to consider in addition to mandates…“

This really doesn’t sound like you at all. It sounds like me. Seems you don’t even agree with the first paragraph and have been continually arguing against that.

Well, you're not a careful reader. He's not arguing for state mandates. He's arguing that people should pay the costs of their choices. I agree. Do you? And when others impose a cost on you, they should pay for that cost. Do you agree?

I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand. — Xtrix

Isn't smoking a doing something? We are asking people to refrain from unvaccinating? At some point the push forward just creates more push back. Vaccination seems to fall along some political lines. The virus spreads really fast now with the delta variant. Technically, there's two ways to increase the percent population of the vaccinated.

He's in favor of mandates. What he’s proposing in this article is something IN ADDITION to mandates.

You’re not a careful reader.

No, he doesn't say that. He describes what some are doing. That's not the same as advocating it. You're the one who isn't reading carefully. At no point does he explicitly defend mandates. He is simply arguing that people should pay the true costs of their choices. And I agree with that. I suspect you don't, however.

It’s unjust to force people not to smoke — or even not to do drugs, in my view. It’s just to prevent them from smoking in restaurants.

I won’t let you dodge this: Do you agree with school vaccine mandates or not? Smoking bans? — Xtrix

So, I've made clear my view on vaccines and defended it. You haven't argued against my view, so far as I can see. You've just contradicted me and expressed surprise, neither of which constitutes any kind of refutation. And you've linked to an article written by an ethicist who is not arguing for the ethics of mandates, but something quite different: paying the cost of your choices.

But anyway, when it comes to the young matters are different, for they do not yet fully qualify as agents and thus doing what's in their best interests typically takes precedence over respecting their autonomy. Parents should pay the costs, of course - the costs of their education (to which it is justified to subject them) and vaccinating them. The full costs. As Caplan would - or should - agree. Do you?

As for smoking bans - well, no, I am opposed to those. Just don't go to restaurants that allow smoking.

No, he doesn't say that. — Bartricks

Yes, he does. Hence the “in addition…” He’s building off of the necessity of mandates— it’s right in the title, in fact.

But apparently you’re not familiar with Caplan at all. Because it’s obvious from his past comments where he stands on mandates. Since you seem to be struggling with this, I’ll quote directly:

“How ought we solve this problem? One approach is to get tough on the unvaccinated. Examples include: vaccine passports (i.e., authentication for entry to private establishments); banning unvaccinated students from attending colleges and universities; vaccine mandates for private- and public-sector employees; and perhaps even a federal mandate for vaccination.

These tactics are necessary for protecting our communities and restoring our ways of life. This plague has gone on for more than 18 months and will continue without these steps.”

So, you’re simply wrong.

He even goes on to discuss the opposition—of which you’d be included. Another interesting read for you. Odd that I have to point you to relevant literature, given your claims to be an ethics expert. But I digress.

Maybe you should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". He's a little better than Caplan. Although obviously he doesn't enjoy the prestige and respect of a medical doctor.

Just don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. — Bartricks

Good luck finding one.

He’s building off of the necessity of mandates— it’s right in the title, in fact. — Xtrix

No he isn't. And if you've ever written an article for a popular venue, you'd know that they typically come up with the title (and that it's often misleading).

And no, I am not familiar with Caplan's work. But in that quote you just gave, he also does not explicitly defend mandates. He asks, "how ought we to solve it?" and then simply describes something, which is not the same as defending it.

But note: I am what he is. I don't care what he thinks, I care only what can be supported by rational argument. And paying the costs of your choices is something that can be supported by rational argument. And that's what he was arguing in that otherwise poorly argued popular piece taht you linked to.

Maybe you should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". — Bartricks

So the plot thickens. As I suspected, this is really just libertarian “principles” once again coming to absurd conclusions.

JS Mill was a fine thinker. He’d also be in favor of these mandates, because he wasn’t an idiot.

JS Mill was a fine thinker. He’d also be in favor of these mandates, because he wasn’t an idiot. — Xtrix

I don't think he would be in favour of them. Indeed, I think it is fairly obvious he'd agree with me. He thought that neither the state nor any individual is justified in interfering in the liberty of another save to prevent others from coming to harm. So he was absolutely opposed to interfering with people's freedom of choice 'for their own good'. Which is what this is all about.

If the vaccine works, then the unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated. So Mill would have agreed with me. Have you read him? He didn't have any medical training....

As I suspected, this is really just libertarian “principles” once again coming to absurd conclusions. — Xtrix

So we can add 'labelling' to the list of ways you think you can refute an argument. There's 'contradicting its conclusion' (presumably that one only applies if the person doing the contradicting is Xtrix); there's expressing surprise and bewilderment (same again); and now there's labelling.

You may like pigeonholing people, but I simply follow reason.

No he isn't. — Bartricks

Yes, this is exactly what he’s doing. “In addition to mandates” makes that clear, along with prior things he’s written. You’ve simply misread it because you don’t want it to be the case, unfortunately.

But in that quote you just gave, he also does not explicitly defend mandates. He asks, "how ought we to solve it?" and then simply describes something, which is not the same as defending it. — Bartricks

No, you’re wrong:

“These tactics are necessary for protecting our communities and restoring our ways of life.”

If this isn’t defending these policies, including mandates, I don’t know what is. He goes on even more explicitly, which I can quote as well.