Vaccine mandate ethical dilemma

[Chuck Naill]

The statement was could an anti-vaxxer threaten you daughter. I'll wait for the member to respond.

As to dilemmas, an unvaccinatied person could be a threat to others, particularly children who have not been able to receive the vaccine. With 1000 people per day dying, I'd think getting a free vaccine is the least amount of effort one could provide for themselves and the people they're around.

I agree, if the decision is a difficult one, you have to say why. I know you've promoted Ivermectrin with your posts, so, what's the draw in using an improven drug.

Chuck, the dilemma is government mandates when there is a certainty of it causing death.

An unvaccinated person could be a threat. So could a drunk driver. That's not the point of the OP.

Ivermectin is also not the point, so I don't know why you've introduced that. If you would like to discuss ivermectin, feel free to post a new thread or comment in one of many where it is raised in the OP. "Interesting Video" is one, off the top of my head.

What role if any does the government play when 1000 Americans are dying each day? If you were in charge, would you encouage a approved treatment even with side effects. All medications have the potential to interact with other meds or food. Hypersensitivies are common for many or most pharmaceutials.

I know you don't like mandates and I appreciate your position, however, the member did accuse "anti-vaxxers".

[dneal]

You have the other part of the Utilitarian dilemma that I already pointed out in the OP. That's the problem with the "greatest happiness principle". It condemns a smaller number of people with the assertion that it is saving more. The "you want people to die" rhetorical finger is pointed right back at the accuser now.

[Chuck Naill]

I am listening to reports of hospital workers who are saying people are dying who didn't have to die, and we are talking about vaccines which has a relative safety profile.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...s/Moderna.html

[Chuck Naill]

You have the other part of the Utilitarian dilemma that I already pointed out in the OP. That's the problem with the "greatest happiness principle". It condemns a smaller number of people with the assertion that it is saving more. The "you want people to die" rhetorical finger is pointed right back at the accuser now.

You didn't answer. Are you intentionally avoiding? What would you propose if 1000 people per day in the US were dying? What if 1000 people per day were dying from vaccines?

[dneal]

I'm not intentionally avoiding. I posed the question in my OP.

Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

You are avoiding the question. Is it moral for the government to mandate something that will assuredly kill a portion of its citizenship, for the benefit of a larger portion of its citizenship?

[Chuck Naill]

I'm not intentionally avoiding. I posed the question in my OP.

Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

You are avoiding the question. Is it moral for the government to mandate something that will assuredly kill a portion of its citizenship, for the benefit of a larger portion of its citizenship?

So, I am the only one that must answer? This is why you don't get the "chuck" you prefer @dneal . That said, if I were in charge and given the daily mortality rate, yes, I would mandate a proven response over nothing. That said, those with hypersensitives would not be required.

You did write on my abortion thread that the taking of life is justified in your mind in certain circumstances.

[dneal]

No, you are not the only one who must answer; but it seems you incur an obligation to "return the favor" if someone is going to bother with answering your questions. Ignoring your turn to answer and posing more questions as a response is hardly fair if one is going to engage in reasonable discussion.

In the case of this topic, I already posed the question you are asking. You are simply asking me the same question I asked.

I do acknowledge that the taking of human life is justified in certain circumstances. I also acknowledge that risk is inherent in life. I am not ok with the government mandating a lottery of death. Does that answer your question?

[welch]

The article does not raise an issue of utilitarian ethics.

I read the article. It reports on people in elder care homes... etc

I cited the portion of the article I was referring to (Austria joining other countries in mandating vaccination), and I cited the link.

Then, I explained how that creates an ethical dilemma based on the utilitarian theory.

So you have used semantics to create a quite lengthy straw man to argue against a point no one made.

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism. It is a straight-forward study in medical statistics. It does not even support your claim about the number of deaths with or without vaccination. That seems, at best, an extrapolation from this data. Read the study carefully: it counts the people who died after vaccination, but not those who died because they were vaccinated. It does not claim, even, that people died from Covid.

The study does not, to be clear, support an argument that tries to balance the danger from anti-Covid vaccines against the danger from Covid to the unvaccinated. It just talks about deaths some time after a patient was vaccinated. From that it concludes that medicine should be careful when vaccinating people older than 85 in nursing homes, but that vaccinating the frail elderly is much safer than leaving them unvaccinated.

That is not a base from which to leap into a discussion of utilitarian ethics. I think utilitarianism is too fuzzy to be useful except at some gods-eye level: sure, try to make most people happy, but "happy" is a fuzz-ball word, and practically meaningless. Same with "most". I think utilitarianism fails, so it's not an interesting argument, nor does utilitarianism seem to be the basis for vaccine mandates of any sort.

Maybe the data-question should be whether people run a higher risk of getting sick from Covid, and dying, if they are vaccinated rather than unvaccinated. We can total up the numbers from the people going into hospitals.

[Chuck Naill]

No, you are not the only one who must answer; but it seems you incur an obligation to "return the favor" if someone is going to bother with answering your questions. Ignoring your turn to answer and posing more questions as a response is hardly fair if one is going to engage in reasonable discussion.

In the case of this topic, I already posed the question you are asking. You are simply asking me the same question I asked.

I do acknowledge that the taking of human life is justified in certain circumstances. I also acknowledge that risk is inherent in life. I am not ok with the government mandating a lottery of death. Does that answer your question?

Okay.

[dneal]

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism.

A true vaccine mandate raises the question. It is a logical consequence. It is utilitarian ethical theory.

Your argument is a straw man, and a deflection.

-edit-

Here are the logical propositions derived:

A - The COVID vaccine has a mortality rate of eight in one million (according to one study).
B - Some governments are imposing a vaccine mandate.
C - A true and complete mandate has no exceptions.
D - The purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect as many as possible (Utilitarian ethical theory).

[Chuck Naill]

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism.

A true vaccine mandate raises the question. It is a logical consequence. It is utilitarian ethical theory.

Your argument is a straw man, and a deflection.

-edit-

Here are the logical propositions derived:

A - The COVID vaccine has a mortality rate of eight in one million (according to one study).
B - Some governments are imposing a vaccine mandate.
C - A true and complete mandate has no exceptions.
D - The purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect as many as possible (Utilitarian ethical theory).

This is why no one can have a reasonable discussion with you. His or her post was not attacking you , but pointing out that your conclusions could be inaccurate.

[dneal]

Nope. He is arguing that the WSJ article didn't say anything about utilitarian ethics. I agree. But that's not the argument of the OP. It's a diversion - a straw man. He's "winning" an argument of his own making, and ignoring the point - a deflection. A red herring. I'm not playing that game.

I made no conclusions. I derived logical propositions, and asked questions. If the propositions are wrong, fine. Point it out. If the logic is flawed, fine. Point it out.

The reason you guys can't have a reasonable discussion is because you don't like the consequences of the rhetoric you advocate.

Still no answers to these questions, for example; because you already know where it leads.

Can a vaccinated person contract COVID?
Can a vaccinated person transmit COVID?

Here, I'll add another one.

Is the primary purpose of a vaccine to protect the individual vaccinated?

[Chuck Naill]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

[TSherbs]

Rhetoric doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

Nor do all your questions. Making a decision resolves the dilemma. Are you unable to chose? Is this a difficult decision for you, or are you saying that the decision is impossible (an impasse)? Or is this whole thread a rhetorical exercise in purposefully stalling? I don't understand your purpose.

I thought you bowed out of this thread (see post #15).

I'm becoming hesitant to bother responding to you, because you seem to not be interested in anything other than just saying whatever you want to get off your chest at the moment. You ask a question, I answer, and you're no longer interested... until you are again.

Dude, you're really something.

I said "nevermind" AFTER and in response to what YOU said you were not interested in. *YOU* said that you were not interested in an exchange of "facts" and "opinions." Since that is all that is ever done here, I took it as a signal that you were no longer interested in the exchange. So I said nevermind.

There are aspects of the thread that I am interested in and participate in, same as you do.

But you are free to reply to our not reply to whatever you want. And even change your mind. As am I.

[TSherbs]

I derived logical propositions, and asked questions. If the propositions are wrong, fine. Point it out...

Welch seems to show that your first (primary) premise is a misrepresentation of the study results that you cite. He quoted the relevant passages.

[dneal]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? Who dodges the issue? Not me. The only thing I struggle with is keeping you on topic.

[Chuck Naill]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? Who dodges the issue? Not me. The only thing I struggle with is keeping you on topic.

Just review the various posts and the reaction of others with your rhetoric . I don’t need to defend my posts. If you can show me I’m wrong, I admit it.

[Chuck Naill]

You did say the taking of human lives were justified and here your arguing about government mandate that are trying to slow the 1000 deaths per day. Which is it? See the double standard? I do.

[dneal]

@TSherbs - Not trying to be snarky, but you pop in and make superficial statements. Then you proclaim how you're not interested in a discussion. Then you pop back in with more superficial statements. You do this often enough for me to make this comment on it. You seem to dismiss it as "we're just chatting, right?"

But let's not use this section as an example. Let's point out your thread-shitting in some guy's Pelikan M800 for sale thread.

Why would you be compelled to post something like that? You took a shit in the guy's thread, and then you denied any culpability. You seem kind of bitter, to be honest.

But back on topic (somewhat). Welch went to great lengths to formulate an article that was not relevant. What premise did he show I misrepresented? It's quite clear that it was back of the envelope math. I said that. I said the numbers were arguable, but that it wasn't relevant to the salient point. How dense do you have to be to not get that? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way).

Pick the study. Pick the number. I don't care what it is. If it's one or more, then the point still stands. Utilitarian ethics. If you don't know anything about that, and aren't interesting in learning; maybe this isn't the thread for you. Just sayin'...

I'm not really interested in entertaining your drive-by, bitter, thread-shitting.

[dneal]

You did say the taking of human lives were justified and here your arguing about government mandate that are trying to slow the 1000 deaths per day. Which is it? See the double standard? I do.

Strawman. I said taking of human life was acceptable to society in certain circumstance.

I'm asking that again, given these circumstances.

If your answer is "yes", just say so. It's ok.