Don’t you think that, conceptually, it is strange that there is a very small group of people 1000 miles away that have determined that if one doesn’t put a liquid in their body that person cannot have the free will choice to be employed at their place of business?
From a moral perspective, we are all responsible for our own health. That responsibility, along with other free will choices, is sacred or maybe objectively moral (depending on your nomenclature). We hold them sacred because without choice, some abstract objects don’t exist, such as goodness and love.
Now, we all make poor choices in some areas of our lives that affect ourselves and others. I think that is obvious due to the state of the world… However, just because one makes choices (perhaps even bad choices) doesn’t necessitate that their free will should be taken, such as not taking the annual influenza virus vaccine. Not taking the vaccine, which could certainly have an effect on others, is acceptable. In other circumstances, free will is taken because the damage done to another causes irrevocable harm or damage, such as stealing (removal of a person’s right to ownership), murdering someone (permanently removing a person’s future free choices), etc.
Removal of one’s choice comes when one has damaged another person or their rights without their consent. There is a threshold or damage whereby we punish others by removal of freedom (prison), property, or freedom choice efficacy i.e. money. Now it is a good thing that we have the judicial system because sometimes the feedback loop is broken. Example: one can murder and the victim can’t murder them back. I think with this perspective, I can understand lockdowns prior to a vaccine. One’s action has an effect on another without freewill consent.
There is another scenario where damage can take place without the removal of free will via punitive action. There are circumstances where two people can hurt one another legally and even accidently kill another legally. This is socially acceptable – American football. Each player enters the game with their own free will, knowing the danger. From recent famous studies, almost all players have permanent brain damage yet with that fact known people continue to play football. That damage actually causes aggression and has caused players to kill other people, thereby effecting others. But that is all socially acceptable. I think we can use this as a reference.
In this football situation, any player can opt out. Now Covid is a little different. One needs to opt in for the vaccine. However, much like the freewill arrangement that football players have, so too do non-vaccinated people. Everyone now has the free will choice to get vaccinated or not. That’s really their prerogative. No one today in America doesn’t have the choice to opt out (or in depending on your perspective) and at the risk of sounding callous, certainly those who don’t have the choice (religious or medical reasons) fall under acceptable levels per the socially acceptable risk rates seen in the flu vaccination rates. Therefore, those who are unvaccinated are under a freewill agreement of risk.
I think a rebuttal to this would be the burden that unvaccinated people put on the health system. However, there are medical teams that support injured players for money. Loss of money is the compensation and consequence the players give. Likewise, our insurance premiums should reflect the risks we take. Furthermore, the burden of poor choice in diet and exercise is tolerated by health system. So really, I think this isn’t a valid argument.
To bring it back, violation of this natural order is really bringing the punishment before the choice which is out of order, thus making it unjustified. Not only that, the vaccine mandate subsidizes the poor health choices of some with the expense of personal liberty and freedom of others. To me, that violates the natural law of personal responsibility and even core objective morals – violating one’s personal choice. This evaluation reminds me of a statement from MLK.
“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
I do think that Biden is sincere in his effort but is sincerely wrong. It seems to me a violation of moral rights thus making it unjust. The sincere action would be to encourage vaccination, health, and wellness rather than control.
The question comes. Is it a moral responsibility to disobey or morally just to comply?
Slamas Llamas 