- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,388
- 19,122
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Quote function's gone weird, but you said:
"This is an example of a particular-universal barrier violation. If all other vaccines did lower death rates, then it still wouldn't be the case that this one does."
The evidence is that this one does. So that objection is irrelevant.
"Let's all quickly remember the lockdowns, which according to the RAND Corporation's working paper killed more people (and continue to kill people) than they saved."
Evidence for your claims about lockdowns killing more people than they saved, please? For what it's worth, I was critical of some aspects of how lockdowns were done (at least where I was at the time) and could see a moral argument for non-compliance in some cases, but that seems to me to be a completely separate issue to vaccines.
"These same authorities, mind you, who broke federal law by unilaterally altering the data methods for COVID pandemic statistics? Under the legal information quality standards, the death rate is around 24 times less (according to some studies, it's hard to tell exactly due to the seeming incapacity of the government health bureaucrats to maintain consistent and comparable data sets over time.) And why, even after more than a year, has there been a failure to submit the proper oversight paperwork? I guess verifying information quality isn't necessary when dealing with a pandemic?"
It sounds as if America is experiencing some bureaucratic issues, but I'm not in America and I'm not relying on American data to form my thinking.
"Do you actually criticize this coercion when it occurs though?"
Yes. Somewhere in my post history here, pre-dating Covid, you'll even find a thread I started which criticised coercion of the flu shot.
"Why should I accept a value calculus of 'risk mitigation to save lives with biological life as the sole accepted value?'"
I'm not suggesting it's the sole accepted value, but I'm not seeing what value you're aiming to protect by being anti-vaccination. Vaccination, freely chosen, is not a human rights issue. In fact, lack of access to vaccination is seen as a breach of human rights under international agreements.
"And so why should I listen to a faux moral obligation which is so blatantly antihuman as to require the severing of what is most critical of all in life."
What are you seeing being severed by vaccination, precisely?
"But you continually 'go with what you've got in your heart' by offering your moral opinions rather than presenting an ethical case."
I may not be presenting my case in the structures and with all the jargon of a formal philosophical argument, but the ethical case is there. Vaccinations prevent death. Whether we take a basic human goods approach, a consequentialist approach, or even an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach, it's difficult to justify vaccine refusal on ethical grounds.
"This is an example of a particular-universal barrier violation. If all other vaccines did lower death rates, then it still wouldn't be the case that this one does."
The evidence is that this one does. So that objection is irrelevant.
"Let's all quickly remember the lockdowns, which according to the RAND Corporation's working paper killed more people (and continue to kill people) than they saved."
Evidence for your claims about lockdowns killing more people than they saved, please? For what it's worth, I was critical of some aspects of how lockdowns were done (at least where I was at the time) and could see a moral argument for non-compliance in some cases, but that seems to me to be a completely separate issue to vaccines.
"These same authorities, mind you, who broke federal law by unilaterally altering the data methods for COVID pandemic statistics? Under the legal information quality standards, the death rate is around 24 times less (according to some studies, it's hard to tell exactly due to the seeming incapacity of the government health bureaucrats to maintain consistent and comparable data sets over time.) And why, even after more than a year, has there been a failure to submit the proper oversight paperwork? I guess verifying information quality isn't necessary when dealing with a pandemic?"
It sounds as if America is experiencing some bureaucratic issues, but I'm not in America and I'm not relying on American data to form my thinking.
"Do you actually criticize this coercion when it occurs though?"
Yes. Somewhere in my post history here, pre-dating Covid, you'll even find a thread I started which criticised coercion of the flu shot.
"Why should I accept a value calculus of 'risk mitigation to save lives with biological life as the sole accepted value?'"
I'm not suggesting it's the sole accepted value, but I'm not seeing what value you're aiming to protect by being anti-vaccination. Vaccination, freely chosen, is not a human rights issue. In fact, lack of access to vaccination is seen as a breach of human rights under international agreements.
"And so why should I listen to a faux moral obligation which is so blatantly antihuman as to require the severing of what is most critical of all in life."
What are you seeing being severed by vaccination, precisely?
"But you continually 'go with what you've got in your heart' by offering your moral opinions rather than presenting an ethical case."
I may not be presenting my case in the structures and with all the jargon of a formal philosophical argument, but the ethical case is there. Vaccinations prevent death. Whether we take a basic human goods approach, a consequentialist approach, or even an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach, it's difficult to justify vaccine refusal on ethical grounds.
Upvote
0