Why are you a consequentialist? It's obviously false.

I am vaccinated. Now, try and explain something - anything. Just try. Not much of a thinker, are we?

Er, what? I did. You just said some stuff. Didn't address anything I'd said. Start by reading what I have said and addressing it. That's my advice. In fact, don't leave your house until you have done so.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact. — Xtrix

And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? Virtually none. You'd have to lock us down for regular flue, Xtrix! I hope you don't drive. There's a vanishing small possibility that you'll run someone over at some point. So keep it in the garage!!!

And then there's sick little tiny Tim ....but what about the children!!

No, matey, you haven't. You don't know, do you? Pssst: it doesn't.

Maybe we should stop butterflies flapping their wings - they cause tornadoes, you know! Experts tell us.

No it hasn't. Explain.

Again, no need to cry. Now, explain how I'm wrong. Do that without making recourse to sick little tiny Tim.

Remember Xtrix, I'm in favour of allowing dumb people to live the dumb lives they want to live. I'm on your side, Xtrix.

Can you actually address something I've said?

If Tim wants to thump Jones and Jones wants Tim to thump him, what business is it of yours? Whose rights are they violating? Yours?

Now, baby steps......if two people want to remain unvaccinated then they....are....posing.....a.....risk....to.....each....other. Of their own free will. So butt out and let them pose that risk to each other if that's what they want to do! It's nothing to do with you. Lead your life how you want - let them lead theirs how they want. Sheesh. You busy-bodies really annoy me. Covid has put so much wind in your bossy sails hasn't it?

No, I have gobs of it.

Once more: what risk are the unvaccinated posing to the vaccinated?

I am now vaccinated (today, in fact!). Why should I give a damn whether you are?

What's your point?

That's not an explanation. First, Mill's harm principle outlines a 'necessary' not 'sufficient' ground for restricting the liberty of others. Second, the whole point is that the unvaccinated are not a risk to the vaccinated. They are posing a risk to themselves, not others.

Imagine Tim wants to hit Jones in the face, and Jones wants Tim to hit him in the face. Would Mill think we could intervene?

Explain.

And the mark I give that reply is "E" (that's a fail).

Answer my questions, Xtrix - what about sex? Should everyone be made to wear condoms if having sex? I mean, you can catch things from it. Should everyone be made to take Prep?

Ethics: it's what I am an expert in and you're not. Now, experts in subjects other than ethics will typically only be able to tell you about the consequences of things. So that's all they do. The economic consequences; the medical consequences; the psychological consequences and so forth. That's what their expertise gives them authority to pronounce on. And that's fine - but it isn't ethics and when they make a normative judgement - a judgement about what we ought to do - they're stepping outside their area of expertise.

If you knew anything at all about ethics, you'd know that ethics is not all about securing optimal consequences (even after one has figured out what those may be). It is about respecting people's rights in the process. That's why if the only way to stop covid was to torture a child, it'd be wrong to do that. It's why it is wrong to shove a fat person off a bridge onto some tracks below in order to stop a runaway train trolley from running over five innocents further down the line. People have rights and those rights put restrictions on what you can do to other people to further your own - and their - ends.

Now, those who take the vaccine are free to do so. Nobody is arguing that people should be prevented from taking the vaccine. But people should also be free not to take the vaccine if they do not wish to. Yes, it's dumb. But people are free to be dumb (see, I'm on your side - you just don't realize it). They're not exposing others to a risk apart from those who have themselves made the same choice.

And if you don't want to work with unvaccinated people for whatever irrational reason, that's your right - stay home. Resign. Lose your job. Up to you.

And if you run a business and don't want unvaccinated people working for you, sack them. That's your right too - it's your business, not theirs and they're not entitled to their job.

But what you're not entitled to do is say to another business owner "sack your unvaccinated employees".
Stay in your lane. Other people matter and other people have their own lives to lead. Let them lead them in the way they see fit. They way 'they' see fit - not you. You're not them. It's a very simple idea - an idea J.S.Mill (someone you think was a great intellectual, despite obviously never having read him) championed. Read J.S.Mill's On Liberty. And stay out of other people's lives until or unless the way they're living them threatens your rights.

Ooo, good reply! Calling me stupid - excellent! Are you 6? What are you going to do for a follow up - make a fart noise with your mouth? Run to teacher?

Do try and show your reasoning. The vaccine protects against the virus. So, the unvaccinated are exposing only themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk.

Now, do what others do and desperately scrabble around trying to find some hugely remote risk and decide that it is on that basis that you think it is ok to violate people's rights. Then realize that this would justify quarantining people for the common cold; then realize this would mean forcing everyone to take Prep so that we don't catch HIV from one another. And so on. Realize, in other words, that you have a childishly ignorant view, wholly unnuanced and uninformed by any understanding of rights and how they work.

What are you on about? I don't think you have a right to do whatever you want. Talk about straw man. But you are not violating another's rights if all you are doing is deciding to expose yourself to a risk. You are not violating another's rights if you go skydiving, are you? Or if you decide to eat unhealthily.

And you're not usually so obviously stupid. — tim wood

You are.

Everyone's. — tim wood

Explain.

What's your view about unprotected sex? Should it be allowed? Spreads disease. Should we ban it?
There's a drug that radically reduces your chance of catching hiv from someone infected with it. It's called prep. Should we make everyone take it?

You have presented no argument, just blank assertion. Adding 'bottom line' also lacks probative force. And I am an ethicist and I think it is unethical.

but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article.
— Bartricks

:lol: — Xtrix

No need to cry over it.

No one’s. Same with the solitary drinker or drug user or smoker. — Xtrix

Correct. Thus there is no case for intervention. Thus, those who do not wish to take a vaccine should not be made to do so - and that extends to the state using its powers to bully them into doing so or threatening their employers with bankruptcy.

If a private company wants to fire everyone who doesn't have a vaccine, that's their business. They should be allowed to do that if they so wish.

The point is that the state should not use its powers to 'make' companies do that (or, what amounts to the same thing, artificially arrange things so that they'll go bankrupt unless they do).

If you're not violating someone else's rights, then even if what you're doing is stupid - and not getting a vaccine is stupid - then no one is entitled to stop you doing what you're doing. Indeed, you need to butt out and let people live the lives they want to lead. Let them, to use Mill's term, engage in their own 'experiment in living'.

And as Mill pointed out, the human tendency to want to meddle and impose one's own conception of the good life on others (and then to congratulate oneself on helping others) is so deeply engrained that we need an absolutist ban on those in power doing so.

Hence the liberty principle.

He does, both here and in other things he’s written. Again, I’m sorry this runs counter to what you want to believe. I can’t help that. — Xtrix

He may elsewhere, but he doesn't in that article or in the other quote you gave. He's just invited you to think he defends them - and maybe he does - but he hasn't explicitly defended mandates in that article.

Because breakthrough cases happen, as we’ve know all along, because those out there who aren’t eligible or can’t get vaccinated for other reasons are also vulnerable, because it’s impossible to get to herd immunity if 40% of the population refuses, because this allows the virus to mutate into more deadly variants, and because hospitalizations are overwhelming hospitals, leaving staff having to make extremely hard decisions. — Xtrix

You've just lumped a whole load of different issues in together. Why would you not get herd immunity if 40% do not vaccinate? Do you think the unvaccinated will not get the virus? I mean, they will! There will be immunity in that herd in no time!

But it's beside the point: this is about what's right. And what's right isn't always about achieving the best outcome, not unless consequentialism about ethics is correct (and it isn't). This is where you seem to have a difficulty. Non-ethicists are typically only concerned with consequences (for that is what their expertise gives them insight into). That's where non-ethicist experts are expert : they can tell us about the likely consequence of this or that (economists in terms of the economy; psychologists in terms of our psychology; medical experts in terms of medical outcomes and so on). But what's right is not solely determined by such considerations, as any ethicist worth their salt knows. You really need to listen to the right experts!

Let's say we could eradicate covid by torturing a child. Would it be right to torture that child? No, obviously not. Torturing the child would save millions of lives. But it'd be wrong to do it, yes?

Now don't go all "how is that the same!! Call yourself an expert!" on me - just acknowledge the point: that doing what's right is not all about securing the best outcome. You have to respect people's rights along the way. And what I want to know from you is whose rights those who freely decide not to take up a freely available vaccine are violating.

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. — Xtrix

No, I just know how to write and read carefully (not that I always do so, of course). At no point - no point in the article you linked to - does he defend mandates. I probably should have been a lawyer. He invites you to think he's in favour of them. But he doesn't explicitly defend them. He defends paying the true cost of your choices. And I agree - we should.

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

Description. Saying that X is necessary for Y is not the same as saying "we ought to do X".

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.

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....

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". He's a little better than Caplan. Although obviously he doesn't enjoy the prestige and respect of a medical doctor.

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. 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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I have, incidentally, been listening to the doctors, and they're not pressed on this. And they're not ethicists, so perhaps they don't understand the ethical significance of this issue. Or perhaps they rely on the fact that most people don't know which are the relevant experts to be listening to and consulting. He/she's a doctor......so their judgement about what I ought to do must be correct! It's an expert judgement. Only it isn't.

Medical doctors aren't experts in ethics.

Do you agree, in principle, that if your choices are posing no risk to anyone save yourself and others who have made the same choice, then no rights are violated and no-one has the right to stop you doing what you're doing?

The experts we should be listening to are doctors. — Xtrix

No, Riled-up, it is 'ethicists' we should be listening to. Ethicists are experts on what it is right or wrong to do. Doctors are not. And this is an ethical issue, not a medical issue. It 'concerns' a medical issue, but what we're talking about are the rights and wrongs of it......which is not a medical issue, but a normative issue.

So, once more, the experts here are the ethicists. Where do you get your car fixed? The dentist?

Wrong. The burden is upon those who don't vax to not have covid or stay home. Those who vax can go back to the public. It's not a matter of paranoia. It's a proven fact. Have you counted the dead? The burden has shifted to those who don't vax to stay away from the public and out of public spaces. I sincerely hope the government uses all that power you are afraid of to make it so. — James Riley

Where's your argument? You're just stating things.

The unvaccinated are not posing a risk to anyone other than the unvaccinated. So, if vaccines are freely available, then they are not violating anyone's rights and there's no justification for restricting their movement. That's as stupid as insisting that skateboarders at a skateboarding park are violating 'my' rights because they might injure each other. It's just silly. They're posing a risk to each other. Which they're entitled to do.

If there is a right to health care (some think there is), then they forfeited their right and by doing so and then taking up a bed, they violated the rights of the innocent. — James Riley

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

If I go to a bookstore and buy the last copy of a book you want such that you can't now buy it, I have not violated your rights. Your issue is with the bookstore owner, not me.

If I get sick and go into a hospital and am given a bed such that you now can't get one, I have not violated your rights. Your issue is with the hospital's practices, not me.

Now, you have asked if I will ever change my position - I assume you have asked that becasue you now think I'm a dogmatist. Why do you think taht given that I am arguing every step of the way? That's the mark of a non-dogmatist.

Locke argued - and I think he's broadly correct (it is a bloody good guiding principle anyway) - that the state is not entitled to do to us what we would not be entitled to do to each other in the state's absence. That, like I say, seems broadly correct, and seems correct for good reason: we do not get our rights from the state, rather the state's justification rests on its ability to protect our rights. And thus the rights the state is justified in protecting are not ones that it - the state - creates, but ones we had anyway. And thus, the state is not entitled to do to us what we would not be entitled to do to each other in its absence.

That's not a dogmatic view, but a highly rational one. And there will be grey areas - grey areas precisely becuase it is sometimes not clear what we would be entitled to do to each other in the state's absence.

But if you want to take risks with your life - if you want to engage in dangerous sports and so on - then that's not something I'm entitled to stop you doing. Not until or unless it violates my rights.

And if someone sets up a hospital and undertakes to treat you if you injure yourself, that too is something they're entitled to do. I mean, that's nice and doesn't violate your rights.

But that person - the person who sets up the hospital - is not then entitled to stop you engaging in dangerous sports because they don't want to treat you, or want to free up bed space to treat others. Yes?

So the state is not allowed to do those things either.