There is an unwritten rule about white lies, yes. For those, we have a common understanding not to castigate someone telling white lies.

Hahaha! :grin:

Is what determines the point of truth a matter of utility? — Cobra

No. The collective truth has a power beyond utility and boring. This is not the whole-greater-than-sum-of-its-parts case. Rather, when it comes to truth-telling, the parts are as important as the whole collective of truth tellers. If you could pick and choose only those with clear utilities and only then you would tell the truth, then you are violating the principle of fidelity of the whole community of truth tellers. Your system of ethics and morality would quickly crash and burn.

What lessons might we draw from this report, particularly in the current political environment with its ongoing assault on the critical intelligentsia? First of all, it should be a cogent reminder that if some presume that intellectuals are powerless, and that our political orientations do not matter, the organization that has been one of the most potent power brokers in contemporary world politics does not agree. The Central Intelligence Agency, as its name ironically suggests, believes in the power of intelligence and theory, and we should take this very seriously. In falsely presuming that intellectual work has little or no traction in the “real world,” we not only misrepresent the practical implications of theoretical labor, but we also run the risk of dangerously turning a blind eye to the political projects for which we can easily become the unwitting cultural ambassadors. Although it is certainly the case that the French nation-state and cultural apparatus provide a much more significant public platform for intellectuals than is to be found in many other countries, the CIA’s preoccupation with mapping and manipulating theoretical and cultural production elsewhere should serve as a wake-up call to us all. — Olivier5

While I never doubted the power of the intelligentsia -- philosophy, sociology, politics, and economics -- in world politics, I think most of the world do. Especially now that we have the short-attention span generation saturated with social media and visual-centric societies. If some government had stopped in their vigilance in tracking the trajectory of the intellectual movements, that government is plain stupid.

Search for a Naturalistic World View - Shimony

What you have posed is a possibility but we can argue the opposite too. How can we measure this realistically? I don't think we can as there are far to many factors involved and many cognitive abilities are not exactly well understood by any means. — I like sushi

Okay, I can agree that we're not sure about realistic measurement. But could we at least look at the big picture of the results of our mindset. For example, how is it that the more our intelligence increases, the more our environment is being destroyed by us. Let us at least think about that. With all the advancement in technology, there are issues that just don't seem to benefit from out increased intelligence -- overpopulation, environmental pollution, etc.

For the sake of arguing against I could suggest that agriculture allowed us to free up our time and work together in groups more easily (specialisation). Of course there are counter argument to this too as there is reasonable evidence to suggest that human collaborated on a pretty large communal scale prior to the full blown advent of sedentary living and/or agriculture. — I like sushi

Agriculture had made our activities money-centric or commercial-centric.

The point is, whatever changes in hardware (I.Q), either for better or worse, may have occurred over the past 5,000 in humanity as a whole, or between individuals, would have to be seen as utterly insignificant in their effects as compared to the powers of cultural transmission , our ‘software updates’. — Joshs

Good analogy. The updates -- cultural updates -- could be the culprit, not necessarily the brain.
Shuntarō Itō, a historian of science and civilization, predicts the coming of Environmental Revolution as the next turning point in human history. This is a very culture-centered view of civilization.

And that's supposed to be a sign of intelligence? Why not call that stupidity? — Dijkgraf

No, I just couldn't outright argue as to the comparison to the mind-capacity of the prehistoric humans. And I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic. So, if you don't mind elaborating on what you mean.

I am on the camp of future-value computation of cognitive currency of the past compared to now. Similar to the question, what is the value of discovering iron as the material that had catapulted humanity into a whole new civilization in today's currency?

Priceless.

Even if we have smaller brains now that doesn't make us less intelligent. This is a common misconception. — I like sushi

I said in my OP it has nothing to do with the size of the brains -- at least not this time.

Besides, advance language and written text has expanded vastly our abilities to communicate and solve problems. Just think about, look at the threads in this forum. Now what would it look like to people let's say in the 19th Century? They would awe how much the members (who all aren't academic professionals) know about literature or the data about a subject. Of course, they should be explained that we can use search engines and "google" things. — ssu

While this is not the subject of the studies I mentioned on this thread, are you forgetting the masterpieces created in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries? Literature, fine arts, music?

As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. — I like sushi

I agree. I used "IQ" because that's what everybody here wants to use.

Is your argument like this? Intelligence produced luxury. Luxury produced laziness. And laziness reduced intelligence. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's more like this:

Yes, there is evidence to suggest that hunter-gatherers were much more well-rounded and capable than modern domesticated humans (the same can be said about domesticated farm animals). Much of this has to do with the specialization of work that comes with sedentary agricultural life. Cities are like tool boxes, with each person being a tool that performs a specific function but is only really useful when part of an assembly of other tools. A hunter-gatherer, on the other hand, is like a Swiss army knife, capable of doing lots of different tasks on its own (viz self-sufficiency), or at least with assistance from a small group of other multi-purpose tools (of which the collaboration is voluntary). — _db

While I could not produce concrete evidence -- as what our forum friends have been asking -- I could only cite studies by researchers whose findings tend to show that intelligence is not the IQ we are used to attribute to intelligence. IQ is culturally influenced. What I want to talk about is intelligence that could be measured without the benefits of modern culture we have now. The researchers have identified one -- reaction time. It could mean reaction time to threats, which requires quick thinking, which requires quick decision making. We no longer live in life and death situation where our adrenaline could be tasked regularly. Because we have all the tools and technology now to do all that for us. Of course, you could argue that we created these technologies, so we must be awesome compared to the prehistoric humans. And for that, I do not have an argument.

So in light of the prevailing attitude here that I should produce concrete evidence, instead of extrapolating from the findings of research and trying to gain insight from those findings, let me say that they are still in the process of research.

Seems like what's being argued actually relates to a specific and limited set of cognitive skills rather than intelligence in general or intelligence as it's generally understood. And there's not even a clearly articulated alternative theory of what intelligence should be. It could be an interesting subject but it deserves a much more nuanced approach. E.g. Recent evolutionary studies pose questions for how we measure intelligence, or X cognitive skills are on the decline in modern humans (+this is bad because...) — Baden

I like your approach. Thanks.
Yes, this could be true. And yes, "intelligence" has been taken for granted and meaning seems to have been accepted without argument and counter argument. So, maybe we should start there. What is intelligence?

The researchers seem to have been zeroing in on that question. "Reaction time" seems to be important to their findings. A lot of what we have now were not re-invented. We certainly relied on pioneers or the early humans and built our ideas from their ideas. This goes back to the question of the learning curve theory. Someone who was trying to discover fire would have a different mind acuity than someone trying to use fire for various purposes.

Okay, I'm sorry I called you obnoxious. I just wish you had responded more amiably when people quite reasonably asked for evidence. Carry on. — jamalrob

Thank you, @jamalrob.

I dead-ass believed I had pissed you off permanently.

:up:

This thread is really bad, partly because of your obnoxious manner. I'm reluctant to delete it only because people have put some effort into writing posts. — jamalrob

It's not my problem that you refused to delete it. If you're not happy with it, then just close it. No need to stress out and show you care. It's really no big deal. This is just a thread. Sorry to disappoint you.
Obnoxious? Wow!

? — _db

Don't worry about that. I said that becauseI favor that kind of thinking. There's insight.

One thing I think we should take into account is that smart people will likely shine brighter within a certain population range. In a group of ten people the smartest will likely be clear, whereas in a group of more, at some point, they may not shine as bright. — I like sushi

Well, that's what we would commonly expect. But have you ever been a part of a group assigned to do a project with very little training and of diverse background? I had been in that group. The will (or motivation) will always trump smarts.
It was a large group, so you couldn't shine. We were all given a manual to read and learn all the nooks and crannies and names of departments, their functions, on all 4 directions of the NSEW of a very large complex and multiple buildings. A guy next to me who didn't go to college and probably barely passed high school started reading the manual in the morning and by afternoon he was giving directions and instructions to people. Like, he could even estimate the distance from the east wing to across the courtyard to the next building. WTF. If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will.

We certainly can and will speculate about what we MIGHT know in the future. That's fine as long as we don't claim our speculation as fact, until it IS fact, which it might never be. — Bitter Crank

Crabtree and Woodley are researchers. They use science to do their work. Not speculation.

Yes, there is evidence to suggest that hunter-gatherers were much more well-rounded and capable than modern domesticated humans (the same can be said about domesticated farm animals). Much of this has to do with the specialization of work that comes with sedentary agricultural life. Cities are like tool boxes, with each person being a tool that performs a specific function but is only really useful when part of an assembly of other tools. A hunter-gatherer, on the other hand, is like a Swiss army knife, capable of doing lots of different tasks on its own (viz self-sufficiency), or at least with assistance from a small group of other multi-purpose tools (of which the collaboration is voluntary). — _db

I'm gonna use my bias argument and say this is the kind of thinking I have been expecting on this thread.

We don't care. — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, I do. I started this thread. I should at least have some responsibility for it.

So, at least Crabtree based his guess on something in particular, though it isn't at all convincing. Look, we don't know whether people are smarter now, or dumber, than they were 1, 2, 5, 10, or 50 thousand years ago. We have no way of knowing that--none. — Bitter Crank

You mean you're not convinced. That's fine. That's why I created this thread. But to continue saying "we don't know..." and "we have no way of knowing.." are killers of rational dialectic. You don't know. That's fine. But Crabtree and Woodley certainly know something. Crabtree runs the lab to investigate things like this.

From a strictly materialistic point of view, the physical components of myself as a biological organism existed long before I was conceived. However, in every practical sense, ‘I’ did not exist before my conception despite the fact that the material components that would eventually comprise me did exist. — Paul Michael

In light of Aristotle's the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts..., let's define what it is to be you. Certainly, you're not a collection of physical components.

“The graham cracker was inspired by the preaching of Sylvester Graham who was part of the 19th-century temperance movement. He believed that minimizing pleasure and stimulation of all kinds, including the prevention of masturbation, coupled with a vegetarian diet anchored by bread made from wheat coarsely ground at home, was how God intended people to live, and that following this natural law would keep people healthy.” — Joshs

There is truth to this. All in moderation.

Do people cheat on IQ tests? There are a lot of devices available nowadays that make cheating a walk in the park! — Agent Smith

IQ is influenced by culture. And yes, you can practice the IQ tests.

Every facet of our society is idiotic, so it figures. I can tell people are getting dumber; it's pretty pronounced, actually. — theRiddler

Are you referring to the Darwin Awards?

@Banno, @Tom Storm, @Bitter Crank

Thanks for the laugh.

Meanwhile, I have work to do:

The dulling of humanity

Even as the Flynn effect sends IQ scores skyrocketing, some researchers argue a darker view. Humans aren't getting smarter, they say. They're getting stupider.

In November 2012, Stanford University School of Medicine researcher Gerald Crabtree published two papers in the journal Trends in Genetics suggesting that humanity's intelligence peaked between 2,000 and 6,000 years ago.

Crabtree based this assertion on genetics. About 2,000 to 5,000 genes control human intelligence, he estimated. At the rate at which genetic mutations accumulate, Crabtree calculated that within the last 3,000 years, all of humanity has sustained at least two mutations harmful to these intellect-determining genes (and will sustain a couple more in another 3,000 years). Not every mutation will cause harm — genes come in pairs, and some weaknesses caused by mutation can be covered for by the healthy half of the pair, Crabtree wrote; but the calculation suggests that intelligence is more fragile than it seems.

Are Humans Getting Smarter or Dumber?, Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience

I don't have access to the actual Crabtree research. But I just want to point out that this is one of those studies examining the development of intelligence throughout the history of prehistoric and modern humans.

IQ is culturally influenced. The researchers are looking into factors that are not cultural-driven. Reaction time is one. Here's Woodley:

"It's not simply that intelligence is going down or going up," said Michael Woodley, a psychologist at Umea University in Sweden who led the new research. "Different parts of intelligence could be changing in lots of different ways." [Life's Extremes: Smart vs. Dumb]

L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. — Philosophim

You assume too much. My post was gathered 100% from ToothyMaw's OP. I was wondering why no one could get what he was saying.

This is the reason why I avoid political topics -- you get accused of carrying a baggage. Let me assure you that I don't even vote. I don't know what's going on in any government -- except the covid. I never got sick in the year 2019, 2020, and 2021. Maybe because I followed what the medical experts said?

I didn't miss a day of work during those times. Even going to the empty office building to finish some paperwork (this was the time when everyone was working from home). It was fucking scary because all the floors were empty, so motion lighting wasn't being activated. Have you ever stepped out of an elevator to an empty, dark floor? It was holy fuck paranormal-ridden adrenalin to walk around and there was not enough motion to trigger the lights. (Before covid, the building was very busy, elevators took forever to come to you). This is as close as I've gotten to a horror movie.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. Carry on.

↪ToothyMaw
No really, what on Earth are you trying to say? — ssu

He is talking about how the government tries to stir the public's attention to the domestic (internal) problems, while talking about going to war on the global scale. Internal affairs as diversion, so the government could focus on going to a massive war with another country. Or talking about domestic culture conflicts while dodging the scrutiny on the lack of socialized medicine. ETC.

Unless the OP can cite evidence for the primary claims, this thread is a non-starter. I'm tempted to just close it. — jamalrob

You can close it if you're tempted. No sweat.

↪jamalrob
One could cite this thread as evidence for its thesis. *runs away giggling foolishly.* — unenlightened

Right. Compared to your boring threads? Sorry, just kidding. *giggles*

Second, we would likely need detailed brain scans to compare brain development. — Philosophim

They actually did some measurements -- https://theconversation.com/how-our-species-got-smarter-through-a-rush-of-blood-to-the-head-73856
-- granted these are primates (hominid) -- https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.160305

And if I haven't linked this https://www.livescience.com/24713-humans-losing-intelligence.html This is the article that you may or may not agree. In the end, perhaps, we could only opine that intelligence had become more diverse, but not superior.

I'm actually with Jackass on this one, mean IQ has been steadily increasing for decades. OWID documents the trends here: https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence — Garrett Travers

Okay, for the sake of discussion, how does this increase compare to the learning curve theory?

Banno, sometimes talking to you incites the murderous self in me.

Did you read the links I provided?

In case some of you don't know the relevance of learning curve theory:



The steepness of the curve shows how much a person had learned and improved. So, a person learning a completely new task, has a very steep curve, compared to the one who does not have to invent the wheel.

I said in my OP "studies suggest". The precursor of all our skills today are the evolutionary wins that the prehistoric humans had achieved. Do you really think that someone today learning another language has an equal difficulty and learning curve as the prehistoric humans who were just beginning to form a language? Be serious now.

Here's another article:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-smart-early-humans-brain-imaging-answers-180963176/

What studies. Without that your post is vapid. — Banno

Here's one.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on the Flynn Effect. — T Clark

You guys should wean yourselves from IQ and Wikipedia.

I hope you are right about this. Look how much trouble and misery humans have caused just by being Sapien. Some brain cell loss may just the ticket to slow us down. :wink: — Tom Storm

Tom, now that you said that, we can look at philosophy to know that misery is actually a modern problem. But, good point. lol.

How do these studies define and measure intelligence? — pfirefry

Mostly spatial skills and tasks-driven abilities. They contend that our ability today, such as computer knowledge, is the result of those early primitive skills.

Sorry, I made an edit above. Please read my OP again. Thanks.

Not that I care, but I'm going to try to be the devil's advocate here. Word count limit could potentially lead to concise, well thought-out posts because posters are forced to make do of what they're given. However, given that they could repeatedly post anyway, word count can't help.

Some say if we lived forever even in perfect health that it would eventually be meaningless. — TiredThinker

Meaningless in what way? Is living all about meaning? Whatever happened to getting out of bed, getting ready for work, and coming back home and having a nice meal? Funny because if there's anything in life that gets such a high demand, it is this thing called meaning. Big deal!

Many people have a propensity to waste an enormous amount of time with the limited lifespan we have at the moment. If you give these people the eternity to live, they'd be just as happy to stay put and not be productive.

Honestly I really don't get this requirement for meaning. I don't search for meaning in life. I just live it. If I get to live forever, then, I'd live forever and go about my business. Heck, I'd plant bristlecone pine that can live to 5,000 years. I'd also start planting coral reefs -- which takes many thousand of years to line the tropics.

Gender is a cultural concept anyway. The corresponding biological concept is called "sex". — Olivier5

Okay, I agree. I should use sex.

I’m not assuming this occurred, I’m casting doubt on your assumption of a binary model of segregated male and female roles prior to the forming of socio-cultural groups — Possibility

You can't use an assumption to argue against what you call an "assumption". I was speaking in terms of achaeological evidence anyway, not assumptions. So, if you're going to disagree, please produce a counter-factual evidence.

But my point really is not to discuss the primitive humans. This thread is about the difference in moral and ethical emphasis. Why not go back to the topic.

Note that the above scenario was presented by Kohlberg to adolescent children, not adults.

Here's one of the choices, among the choices included in the moral dilemma:

Heinz can steal the drug and no law should punish him.

This decision lets Heinz save his wife and both of them can live happily. This thinking is based on the thought that the rigidity in law should be rejected and justice should be done on moral grounds.

This is a Post-conventional level of Moral thinking.

(Thanks, Tutorials Point)

If anyone is wondering who Lawrence Kohlberg is, he is the one who created the "Heinz Steals the Drug" moral conundrum:

In this scenario, a woman has cancer and her doctors believe only one drug might save her. This drug had been discovered by a local pharmacist and he was able to make it for $200 per dose and sell it for $2,000 per dose. The woman's husband, Heinz, could only raise $1,000 to buy the drug.

He tried to negotiate with the pharmacist for a lower price or to be extended credit to pay for it over time. But the pharmacist refused to sell it for any less or to accept partial payments. Rebuffed, Heinz instead broke into the pharmacy and stole the drug to save his wife. Kohlberg asked, "Should the husband have done that?"

(Thanks, verywell mind).

Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence :

Here's an abstract.

Gilligan's work, which focuses on sex differences in moral reasoning, the perception of violence, the resolution of sexual dilemmas and abortion decisions, poses a major challenge to Kohlberg's theory by introducing a feminist perspective of moral development. Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights. Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. Kohlberg's scoring criteria give the interpersonal care orientations of females lower ratings than the principled justice orientation. Hence, Gilligan identifies different developmental stages for females. However, she does not claim that one system is better; both are equally valid. Only by integrating these complementary male (justice) and female (care) orientations will we be able to realize our full human potential in moral development.

Why not? Hitler is as valuable as Gandhi? — baker

Well, if you put it that way, of course, one is inferior than the other. I'm talking in terms of necessarily. The difference I'm talking about is gender differences.

Studies about men in a certain cultural context may say more about the culture than about men — Olivier5

And this is what I've been trying to explain. Are we confusing causation here? Is it culture or gender?

And whatever primitive humans’ awareness of socio-cultural constructs, you are making a lot of assumptions here about their understanding of ‘males’ and ‘females’ - most of which I would argue are aspects of your own socio-cultural construction rather than theirs. Still, they don’t need to be aware of socio-cultural constructs to be constrained by them.

Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be. — Possibility

So, after criticizing my use of primitive humans as "making a lot of assumptions", you went ahead and made your own -- Men and women likely both fought (or fled) wild animals and invaders to protect themselves, their children, their mate, or anyone whose presence served their narrow interests, whatever they perceived them to be.
I think a double-standard is happening here. Did you know that primitive women gathered berries, while men created tools? Or are you saying I'm just assuming this also? That's written in archaeology. I did not come up with that out of thin air.

Tricky because we tend to make generalizations about the differences and similarities of men and women without having a whole lot of proof. — Bitter Crank

What proof are you looking for? Please explain this.

Stop acting as if bad empericism saves flagrantly sexist claims from being sexist. We are, I hope, sophisticated enough on this forums to understand that universal claims about morality are dumb, that discussing a particular morality as if it is a stand in for all possible moralities is dumb, — Ennui Elucidator

Universal claims about morality are dumb? Really? You don't hold any values yourself, about your family? Friends? Your livelihood? I find it controlling whenever one says talking about a particular subject is dumb. It is intellectually annoying, let alone unoriginal.
Let's start with this premise: men and women are different in physiology and traits.
Then: are the differences due to culture/upbringing/nurture? Or was there a compelling reason besides culture/nurture? I already explained that, before modern civilization, men and women behaved differently. Let's start there.

Sexist ideology? Is women being different from man an idea only? Or is it the stupid idea that women have less value? Women are different. — Raymond

and
No one here is saying, at least I'm not, that differences in morals means differences in value of an individual. I hope this clears things up.

In context, I was trying to say that any difference potentially observed between men and women in terms of morality could be due in part at least to a lesser exposure historically to the corruptive effects of power. The corollary is that as women get more power, they will be exposed to more temptation to misuse such power. — Olivier5

There are other experiments/studies that could at least suggest that there are fundamentals differences in moral traits that have nothing to do with having power.

Consider this:

"When it comes to negotiating a deal, “Males more readily justify moral misconduct by minimizing its consequences or otherwise excusing it,” write Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, and Michael Haselhuhn of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Their study finds “a robust pattern by which men are more pragmatic in their ethical reasoning at the bargaining table than women.

“Men’s competitive behavior, more so than women’s, appears to be motivated by situational threats to their masculinity,” the researchers write in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. “When men feel like they have something to prove or defend against, they become more aggressive and competitive.”

--Men's Morals Are Malleable, Tom Jacobs, Pacific Standard

I don't see from the above that it's the doing of power that makes a difference between male and female view of ethical behavior. Although, once in power, a person could be in spotlight for everyone to see the unethical behavior.

Oh you're trying to make a valid point? I thought you were just complaining that I was using vaccination as a means to win an argument. Well, in that case, enlighten me as to what exactly your point is? Maybe I can hazard a correct response?

Because I'm trying to make a point. Vaccination is something concrete they could grasp.

So what you refer to as ‘masculine morality’ and ‘feminine morality’ are socio-cultural constructions, highlighting the fact that these binary models ‘masculine-feminine’ and ‘good-bad’ are both an oversimplification of reality. — Possibility

The primitive humans living in caves had no concept or awareness of socio-cultural constructs. Heck, they're primitives, with no language. You should be looking at this time in human civilization where males just took it upon themselves to fight wild animals and invaders because women would have zero chance of surviving those attacks. If this behavior of primitive males does not strike you as moral behavior, then what was it they were doing? Extra-curricular activities? Physical education?

To be good people, we need to get in touch with the woman inside us. What say you? — Agent Smith

I have no objection to you forming your own opinion. This thread is as much pointing out the facts that most wouldn't want to talk about as it is expressing one's dissatisfaction about anything.

All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk). — I like sushi

This is neither technical nor colloquial. So, no need to make a notation.
Your point is similar to Agent Smith above. Again, I'm not denying that males have feminine traits too. But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. Shouldn't you continue that train of thought like this -- males have feminine traits too, just like women have feminine traits, so therefore, they don't have differences in morality. Why is the default trait only feminine?

The externally observable action (in this case, charitable giving) doesn't say anything about the person's motivations for doing it. Yet it's the person's motivations for doing something that determines the quality of the action for the person doing the action, and for the one on the receiving end as well. — baker

In fact, it is the women's dislike of being seen as bad or uncaring that drives them to do charitable giving. So, you are correct to question the motivation.

The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. — I like sushi

Incorrect. Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction.