The vaccination question is simple:

Is the government allowed to dictate medical intervention?

@skells
I think your question is beyond the scope of vaccinations alone but in actuality (not theory), yes, governments can and do mandate medical intervention.

Whether or not they should is also beyond the scope of vaccinations. It requires us to make assumptions/value judgments about whether people should be allowed to harm themselves (suicide) or others (Mary Mallon, aka "Typhoid Mary").

@b6hydra there are already signs that the vaccines might be selecting for more virulent and transmissible strains of the virus.

value judgements on whether people should be allowed to harm themselves should be based on science, not political expediency.

particularly when the topic of conversation is violation of human rights

my body, my choice, no?

@skells Usually I'd agree with 'my body, my choice'. But this is a virus which affects other people too... Not sure if that's still 100% a 'my body, my choice' case.

Just something to ponder about philosophically. I know my government is not going to enforce vaccination, but a lot of people in my country are willing to vaccinate so it's thankfully not a terribly huge point of discussion here.

@b6hydra

@trinsec

The thing is, other people can get the virus, wear masks, wear full hazmat suits if they like. So the whole argument of bodily autonomy not being valid goes out the window

@skells @b6hydra

@freemo Yeah, that is if you look at the individual perspective. Then you're absolutely right there.

But what if it's a group effort thing? A 'for the greater good' case?

@skells @b6hydra

@trinsec @freemo @skells @b6hydra You can justify literally any human rights violation as being "for the greater good". The oppressors aren't concerned with whether or not their victims benefit from "the greater good".

@galena I'm always amazed that when the term 'for the greater good' is used, people somehow manage to twist it towards something that might eventually lead to a Godwin.

What if it's not used like 'enforcing' it, but philosophically like I intended?

@freemo @b6hydra @skells

@trinsec

to be fair some of the worst evils have been perpetrated in the name of a "greater good"... the name itself implies one must suffer a lesser evil to achieve a greater good. So I think its understandable why the term is always viewed critically, as well it should be.

@galena @b6hydra @skells

@freemo On the other hand, those kind of reactions eliminates any discussion of some sort. I'm not a person in power, so when I say 'for the greater good', maybe it's a nice idea to discuss the why and why not, and not the 'it justifies all bad stuff' conversation killer.

You do make a point, of course. But it sure kills the discussion to just chop it off like that. ;)

@galena @b6hydra @skells

@trinsec @freemo @b6hydra @skells Perhaps killing the discussion like that is the correct response. Perhaps that shows that the discussion in question had nowhere good to go.

@galena
Using slippery slope logic and straw men only proves that you can't defend your position, not that the discussion was pointless. It's like saying someone is "like Hitler." You haven't proven anything other than your willingness to rely on the absurd to shut people up and pretend you've won.
@freemo @trinsec @skells

@b6hydra @freemo @trinsec @skells Hey, he's the one who dropped Godwin. I gave my stance on "for the greater good" arguments and then he refused to continue the discussion, rather than attempting to argue that some evil is justified, or that it isn't evil, or even to try arguing with my assertion that any human rights violation could be justified that way by trying to give an example of a human rights violation that it can't justify. There were numerous different ways to counter my claim, and he chose to shut down the discussion instead.