7 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Michael Kowalik's avatar

This is a false conclusion, a dangerous category mistake. Ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates is not and cannot be a question of risks vs benefits; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved, fully prevented transmission and saved millions of lives. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the balance of risks vs benefits of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda). Https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

Expand full comment
Grandma Bear's avatar

I completely agree. And it is important, nay urgent, that we make this point loudly and repeatedly, or we'll end up hoist by our own petard. That's why I have problems with focusing on religious and medical exemptions, and exemptions for people with "natural immunity". NO ONE will EVER have the right to put ANYTHING into my sovereign body against my will. Period, full stop.

Expand full comment
Jimychanga's avatar

Excellent point!

Expand full comment
jacquelyn sauriol's avatar

the old saying, 2 steps forward, 1 step back...thanks for this..from Oregon.

Expand full comment
Spider25's avatar

Screw the medical lying money grubbing establishment with a rusty scythe! Scumbags deserve everything they got coming to them!

Expand full comment
alaskachick's avatar

Absolutely.

Expand full comment
ErrorError