Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety 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).
100%. I have argued this throughout my book Neither Safe Nor Effective. Even if the vaccines were wonderfully safe and effective, any mandate, any coercion is antithetical to human liberty, and therefore unacceptable anywhere. I write several medical exemptions per week, never refusing to do so, because this principle is so fundamental.
"Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights."
Might I also add a new perspective: Since Intellectual Property Rights are Patented for some of the ingredients; I have argued that Informed Consent cannot be established.
If you can't research what the secret ingredients might do (because you don't know what ALL ingredients are in them to understand interactions), then information is lacking to be able to make an informed decision.
Succinct, lucid and to the point. It's how I learned it. Yet, ethicists seem to have absconded these basic tenets and principles of medical autonomy and informed consent. Next to epidemiologists, ethicists have been disappointing. It appears ethics is only as strong as the fear that grips a society. It was not able to stand up to hysteria. Too many condoned unethical responses and not enough spoke out.
Nov 11, 2022·edited Nov 11, 2022Liked by Michael Kowalik
Very good arguments. I've been preaching since the beginning of Covid that we can argue against the measures just on a philosophical level, without even getting into the data.
My argument followed the Kantian idea of autonomous moral agents (as, by the way, does the German Basic Law):
1) The intrinsic value of the human being is derived from his status as an autonomous moral agent capable of moral insight.
2) The intrinsic value of a human being is the reason why we should save individual lives (otherwise we could just sacrifice them for the greater good, say for the economy).
3) Forcing people into lockdowns etc. means we deny their status as autonomous moral agents capable of moral insight, and therefore their intrinsic value, from which their right to life in the Basic Law is derived.
4) Therefore, lockdowns etc. imply a negation of the right to life, and therefore undercut the very reason for saving individual lives in the first place, which leads to a contradiction.
"2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo."
People might object that no one held a gun to our heads and instead everyone *voluntarily* lined up for the prick and hence gave their consent. Of course, you and I agree that there exist other ways of coercion than the threat of imminent bodily harm, and many of those were employed in the pandemic. But I think the violation of consent was much more severe than even the soft-coercion and psychological manipulation tactics would entail. Specifically, it is impossible to give consent to something of which someone doesn't know what it is. In the case of the vaccines, the public was sold a bill of goods that substantially misrepresented the actual product both in respect to its safety and its efficacy. In a situation like this, it is incoherent to think most people could have given their consent, even if they appeared to give it.
Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety 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).
100%. I have argued this throughout my book Neither Safe Nor Effective. Even if the vaccines were wonderfully safe and effective, any mandate, any coercion is antithetical to human liberty, and therefore unacceptable anywhere. I write several medical exemptions per week, never refusing to do so, because this principle is so fundamental.
Elegant!
#1 has been my #1 also:
"Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights."
Might I also add a new perspective: Since Intellectual Property Rights are Patented for some of the ingredients; I have argued that Informed Consent cannot be established.
If you can't research what the secret ingredients might do (because you don't know what ALL ingredients are in them to understand interactions), then information is lacking to be able to make an informed decision.
Some excellent clear thinking exhibited in this article, Michael; thank you for your work.
Succinct, lucid and to the point. It's how I learned it. Yet, ethicists seem to have absconded these basic tenets and principles of medical autonomy and informed consent. Next to epidemiologists, ethicists have been disappointing. It appears ethics is only as strong as the fear that grips a society. It was not able to stand up to hysteria. Too many condoned unethical responses and not enough spoke out.
I might as well shamelessly plug my piece about the spectacular failure of philosophy during COVID (Michael here was one of the very few exceptions): https://luctalks.substack.com/p/covid-and-the-strange-death-of-philosophy
Very good arguments. I've been preaching since the beginning of Covid that we can argue against the measures just on a philosophical level, without even getting into the data.
My argument followed the Kantian idea of autonomous moral agents (as, by the way, does the German Basic Law):
1) The intrinsic value of the human being is derived from his status as an autonomous moral agent capable of moral insight.
2) The intrinsic value of a human being is the reason why we should save individual lives (otherwise we could just sacrifice them for the greater good, say for the economy).
3) Forcing people into lockdowns etc. means we deny their status as autonomous moral agents capable of moral insight, and therefore their intrinsic value, from which their right to life in the Basic Law is derived.
4) Therefore, lockdowns etc. imply a negation of the right to life, and therefore undercut the very reason for saving individual lives in the first place, which leads to a contradiction.
This is just excellent. Thank you. Oh, and the mRNA injections aren’t actually a vaccine.
"2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo."
People might object that no one held a gun to our heads and instead everyone *voluntarily* lined up for the prick and hence gave their consent. Of course, you and I agree that there exist other ways of coercion than the threat of imminent bodily harm, and many of those were employed in the pandemic. But I think the violation of consent was much more severe than even the soft-coercion and psychological manipulation tactics would entail. Specifically, it is impossible to give consent to something of which someone doesn't know what it is. In the case of the vaccines, the public was sold a bill of goods that substantially misrepresented the actual product both in respect to its safety and its efficacy. In a situation like this, it is incoherent to think most people could have given their consent, even if they appeared to give it.
Doesn't unvaccinated mean' Removed'? Technically you cannot unvaccinate oneself! Not an arguement, just a question. 😊
https://timothywiney.substack.com/p/the-constitutionality-of-the-draft