Jerry Zhang
By Andrew Cantarutti
Jerry Zhang's essay entitled "The Ethics of Mandatory Vaccines: Why Government Should Take the Plunge" will be published in the newest edition of the University of Toronto philosophy journal, Dialexicon. Dialexicon is a journal aimed at "[closing] the gap in high-quality philosophy resources for young people, offering a platform tailored to middle and high school students who are interested in philosophy." Jerry's essay was one of only five to be selected from entries by high school students around the world. He will be featured on the University of Toronto philosophy department's homepage, and he will be interviewed about his essay and philosophy. Jerry's essay will be available to read on the Dialexicon website late next month.
Esay Bellow:
The Ethics of Mandatory Vaccines: Why Governments Should Take the Plunge
Aristotle elucidates in his Nicomachean Ethics that “the common good” should be the moral criterion upon which political action is decided, because there is greater value in the common good than the individual good (Aristotle & Rackham, 2003). Amid the third wave of COVID-19, with new variants like Omicron, the state has reason to mandate a vaccination policy to protect all social members as they develop herd immunity. A mandatory vaccine policy compels all individuals, except those with incompatible medical conditions, to get vaccinated. Though many resist vaccination due to religious beliefs and doubts about its efficacy, I argue that mandating widespread vaccination is morally permissible.
To support the notion that mandatory vaccination is ethical, I will begin by discussing how individual vaccinations will benefit the entire society. Individuals have an obligation to get vaccinated, because of the concepts of utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
First, mandatory vaccination policies are condoned through a utilitarian framework (Giubilini et al., 2018). Utilitarian ethics, a consequentialist theory, focuses on the outcome, believing that the most ethical action is one that benefits the greatest number of people. According to Alberto Giubilini, senior research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, vaccines are “90-95% [effective] at preventing people from getting sick” from COVID-19 (Giubilini & Jain, 2021). When everyone is vaccinated, the population achieves herd immunity, a status in which everyone is immune to COVID-19. Herd immunity is a collective good. By diminishing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing fatality rates, vaccination protects the lives of billions. The non-excludable and nonrival nature of vaccines allows everyone to benefit from not getting COVID-19 and not spreading it to others. Herd immunity protects the most vulnerable within communities: children who are too young to be safely vaccinated, individuals who are allergic to vaccines or are immunosuppressed, and individuals for whom the vaccine is ineffective. Therefore, it is morally justifiable to mandate vaccination so individuals are protected from catching COVID-19 and spreading it to those who cannot receive the vaccine.
Second, the deontological approach also supports the vaccine mandate. Deontological ethics, a type of normative ethical theory, considers an action to be good because of some characteristic of the action rather than the result of the action. Critics may argue that, since the number of unvaccinated people is limited, the consequences of their actions are marginal. However, the generalization principle, which states that a certain action is wrong if the action is significantly worse when done by everybody, offers justification for mandating vaccines (Giubilini et al., 2018). While the consequences from a few unvaccinated people are insignificant, universal non-vaccination would have undeniable harmful effects. Therefore, according to the generalization principle, imposing universal vaccination is ethical.
Another line of deontological reasoning is contractualism, which defines a social contract that exists between oneself and others. John Locke said humans “are obliged under the law of nature to respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property” (Britannica, 2021). COVID-19 endangers the right to life for many vulnerable members of society, who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Thus, the government is obligated to mandate vaccinations for those who can get vaccinated to protect those who cannot, in accordance with the social contract.
To further my argument, I would like to establish an analogy between vaccine refusal and tax evasion. Across the world, compulsory taxation is enforced in societies. The tax system compels individuals to a reciprocal duty by contributing financially to their communities, and the money collected is spent on providing for and protecting everyone by funding health care and education systems. Just as taxes are paid at the cost of the individual to benefit the entire community, wherein the principle of fairness rests on everyone giving a sum of money proportional to his or her income, the same reasoning applies to compulsory vaccination. Individuals have a reciprocal obligation, which is partially accomplished with vaccination, to protect the safety of their communities. Like compulsory taxation, universal vaccination achieves ubiquitous benefits for all, such as herd immunity. Moreover, it is only fair that everyone in the community makes a fair sacrifice for the collective good. Since compulsory vaccination fulfills the same moral criteria as compulsory taxation, mandated vaccine policies are equally reasonable.
Aside from individual obligation, an equal burden is placed on the government. According to Locke, governments exist to promote the public good (Theriault, 2009). Therefore, within a democracy, which caters to the interests of the majority, those who govern must value utilitarian ethics above other perspectives.
Opponents frequently counter the notion of universal vaccination by defending an individual’s right to choose. Many people reject the vaccine due to self-interest, doubting its efficacy, or religious restrictions. For example, the Dutch Reformed Church discourages vaccination because it "interferes with divine providence" (King, 2021). Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, “Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice.” When the government impedes religious beliefs by forcing vaccines onto people, it is considered an unethical violation of human rights. However, COVID-19 can be lethal for many people, potentially endangering their right to life. The right to life is a prerequisite for a person to access the right to choose. As John Stuart Mills argues, “your freedom is limited by the harm it could do to others” (The Ethics Centre, 2021). In the context of vaccines, individuals lack the right to freedom when it poses a risk to the health of others; therefore, individuals are obligated to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 (Rieder, 2021). By this logic, because the spread of the virus threatens to deny people the right to life, the principal argument that I present outweighs the counterargument.
Some would still argue that there is a high cost associated with mandatory vaccinations. The potential risk of vaccine-related side effects threaten the public image of vaccines. However, I would argue that the media has sensationalized the dangers of vaccines, terrorizing the population. Experts from John Hopkins Medicine strongly encourage everyone to take the vaccine, because vaccines are scientifically proven to be “highly effective in preventing serious disease” (Maragakis & Kelen, 2021). There is no cost high enough to make the action supererogatory. Therefore, a duty of easy rescue exists: if an action is inexpensive, and the benefit to the third party outweighs the cost, then everyone is obligated to undertake the action.
To illustrate this duty, I posit the following thought experiment. If a child is drowning in a lake beside me, and the only cost to save the child is my new pair of running shoes, any rational actor would choose to save the child, since the cost of shoes is far less than that of a life. In the case of COVID-19, the cost of getting vaccinated is far less than the
countless number of lives saved.
In conclusion, I firmly argue that a universal vaccine mandate is morally permissible through an analysis of individual obligation from a utilitarian perspective. Additionally, the utilitarian benefits supersede other ethical lenses within a democratic society. While many view vaccine mandates as strenuous acts involving individual sacrifice, the penance is small compared to the number of lives protected.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotle & Rackham, H. (2003). The Nicomachean Ethics. Harvard Univ. Press.
Britannica (2021). Social contract. In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
Giubilini, A., & Jain, V. (2021). Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss. The Conversation. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/should-covid-19-vaccines-be-mandatory-two-experts-discuss-15032 2
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine, health care, and philosophy. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267229/
King, D. (2021). Faith and the COVID vaccine: What religions have doctrinal reasons for being unvaccinated? The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/09/11/covid-19-few-religions-have-doctrinal-reasons-avoid-vaccine/8271710002/
Maragakis, L., & Kelen, G. D. (2021). Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe? Johns Hopkins Medicine. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe
Rieder, T. N. (2021). There are plenty of moral reasons to be vaccinated – but that doesn't mean it's your ethical duty. The Conversation. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/there-are-plenty-of-moral-reasons-to-be-vaccinated-but-that-doesnt- mean-its-your-ethical-duty-158687
Theriault, S. A. (2009). John Locke and the second treatise on government. Inquiries Journal. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/6/john-locke-and-the-second-treatise-on-government
The Ethics Centre. (2021, March 10). Ethics explainer: The Harm Principle. THE ETHICS CENTRE. Retrieved January 13, 2022, from https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-harm-principle/
By Andrew Cantarutti
Jerry Zhang's essay entitled "The Ethics of Mandatory Vaccines: Why Government Should Take the Plunge" will be published in the newest edition of the University of Toronto philosophy journal, Dialexicon. Dialexicon is a journal aimed at "[closing] the gap in high-quality philosophy resources for young people, offering a platform tailored to middle and high school students who are interested in philosophy." Jerry's essay was one of only five to be selected from entries by high school students around the world. He will be featured on the University of Toronto philosophy department's homepage, and he will be interviewed about his essay and philosophy. Jerry's essay will be available to read on the Dialexicon website late next month.
Esay Bellow:
The Ethics of Mandatory Vaccines: Why Governments Should Take the Plunge
Aristotle elucidates in his Nicomachean Ethics that “the common good” should be the moral criterion upon which political action is decided, because there is greater value in the common good than the individual good (Aristotle & Rackham, 2003). Amid the third wave of COVID-19, with new variants like Omicron, the state has reason to mandate a vaccination policy to protect all social members as they develop herd immunity. A mandatory vaccine policy compels all individuals, except those with incompatible medical conditions, to get vaccinated. Though many resist vaccination due to religious beliefs and doubts about its efficacy, I argue that mandating widespread vaccination is morally permissible.
To support the notion that mandatory vaccination is ethical, I will begin by discussing how individual vaccinations will benefit the entire society. Individuals have an obligation to get vaccinated, because of the concepts of utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
First, mandatory vaccination policies are condoned through a utilitarian framework (Giubilini et al., 2018). Utilitarian ethics, a consequentialist theory, focuses on the outcome, believing that the most ethical action is one that benefits the greatest number of people. According to Alberto Giubilini, senior research fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, vaccines are “90-95% [effective] at preventing people from getting sick” from COVID-19 (Giubilini & Jain, 2021). When everyone is vaccinated, the population achieves herd immunity, a status in which everyone is immune to COVID-19. Herd immunity is a collective good. By diminishing the spread of COVID-19 and reducing fatality rates, vaccination protects the lives of billions. The non-excludable and nonrival nature of vaccines allows everyone to benefit from not getting COVID-19 and not spreading it to others. Herd immunity protects the most vulnerable within communities: children who are too young to be safely vaccinated, individuals who are allergic to vaccines or are immunosuppressed, and individuals for whom the vaccine is ineffective. Therefore, it is morally justifiable to mandate vaccination so individuals are protected from catching COVID-19 and spreading it to those who cannot receive the vaccine.
Second, the deontological approach also supports the vaccine mandate. Deontological ethics, a type of normative ethical theory, considers an action to be good because of some characteristic of the action rather than the result of the action. Critics may argue that, since the number of unvaccinated people is limited, the consequences of their actions are marginal. However, the generalization principle, which states that a certain action is wrong if the action is significantly worse when done by everybody, offers justification for mandating vaccines (Giubilini et al., 2018). While the consequences from a few unvaccinated people are insignificant, universal non-vaccination would have undeniable harmful effects. Therefore, according to the generalization principle, imposing universal vaccination is ethical.
Another line of deontological reasoning is contractualism, which defines a social contract that exists between oneself and others. John Locke said humans “are obliged under the law of nature to respect each other’s rights to life, liberty, and property” (Britannica, 2021). COVID-19 endangers the right to life for many vulnerable members of society, who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Thus, the government is obligated to mandate vaccinations for those who can get vaccinated to protect those who cannot, in accordance with the social contract.
To further my argument, I would like to establish an analogy between vaccine refusal and tax evasion. Across the world, compulsory taxation is enforced in societies. The tax system compels individuals to a reciprocal duty by contributing financially to their communities, and the money collected is spent on providing for and protecting everyone by funding health care and education systems. Just as taxes are paid at the cost of the individual to benefit the entire community, wherein the principle of fairness rests on everyone giving a sum of money proportional to his or her income, the same reasoning applies to compulsory vaccination. Individuals have a reciprocal obligation, which is partially accomplished with vaccination, to protect the safety of their communities. Like compulsory taxation, universal vaccination achieves ubiquitous benefits for all, such as herd immunity. Moreover, it is only fair that everyone in the community makes a fair sacrifice for the collective good. Since compulsory vaccination fulfills the same moral criteria as compulsory taxation, mandated vaccine policies are equally reasonable.
Aside from individual obligation, an equal burden is placed on the government. According to Locke, governments exist to promote the public good (Theriault, 2009). Therefore, within a democracy, which caters to the interests of the majority, those who govern must value utilitarian ethics above other perspectives.
Opponents frequently counter the notion of universal vaccination by defending an individual’s right to choose. Many people reject the vaccine due to self-interest, doubting its efficacy, or religious restrictions. For example, the Dutch Reformed Church discourages vaccination because it "interferes with divine providence" (King, 2021). Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, “Canadians are free to follow the religion of their choice.” When the government impedes religious beliefs by forcing vaccines onto people, it is considered an unethical violation of human rights. However, COVID-19 can be lethal for many people, potentially endangering their right to life. The right to life is a prerequisite for a person to access the right to choose. As John Stuart Mills argues, “your freedom is limited by the harm it could do to others” (The Ethics Centre, 2021). In the context of vaccines, individuals lack the right to freedom when it poses a risk to the health of others; therefore, individuals are obligated to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19 (Rieder, 2021). By this logic, because the spread of the virus threatens to deny people the right to life, the principal argument that I present outweighs the counterargument.
Some would still argue that there is a high cost associated with mandatory vaccinations. The potential risk of vaccine-related side effects threaten the public image of vaccines. However, I would argue that the media has sensationalized the dangers of vaccines, terrorizing the population. Experts from John Hopkins Medicine strongly encourage everyone to take the vaccine, because vaccines are scientifically proven to be “highly effective in preventing serious disease” (Maragakis & Kelen, 2021). There is no cost high enough to make the action supererogatory. Therefore, a duty of easy rescue exists: if an action is inexpensive, and the benefit to the third party outweighs the cost, then everyone is obligated to undertake the action.
To illustrate this duty, I posit the following thought experiment. If a child is drowning in a lake beside me, and the only cost to save the child is my new pair of running shoes, any rational actor would choose to save the child, since the cost of shoes is far less than that of a life. In the case of COVID-19, the cost of getting vaccinated is far less than the
countless number of lives saved.
In conclusion, I firmly argue that a universal vaccine mandate is morally permissible through an analysis of individual obligation from a utilitarian perspective. Additionally, the utilitarian benefits supersede other ethical lenses within a democratic society. While many view vaccine mandates as strenuous acts involving individual sacrifice, the penance is small compared to the number of lives protected.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aristotle & Rackham, H. (2003). The Nicomachean Ethics. Harvard Univ. Press.
Britannica (2021). Social contract. In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
Giubilini, A., & Jain, V. (2021). Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss. The Conversation. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/should-covid-19-vaccines-be-mandatory-two-experts-discuss-15032 2
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine, health care, and philosophy. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267229/
King, D. (2021). Faith and the COVID vaccine: What religions have doctrinal reasons for being unvaccinated? The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/09/11/covid-19-few-religions-have-doctrinal-reasons-avoid-vaccine/8271710002/
Maragakis, L., & Kelen, G. D. (2021). Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe? Johns Hopkins Medicine. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe
Rieder, T. N. (2021). There are plenty of moral reasons to be vaccinated – but that doesn't mean it's your ethical duty. The Conversation. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://theconversation.com/there-are-plenty-of-moral-reasons-to-be-vaccinated-but-that-doesnt- mean-its-your-ethical-duty-158687
Theriault, S. A. (2009). John Locke and the second treatise on government. Inquiries Journal. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/6/john-locke-and-the-second-treatise-on-government
The Ethics Centre. (2021, March 10). Ethics explainer: The Harm Principle. THE ETHICS CENTRE. Retrieved January 13, 2022, from https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-harm-principle/