Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Ethical Principles of Public Health

dc.hillsdale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#51

Post by Consultant32452 »

verisimi wrote: post #47
Consultant32452 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coercive power to actually provide social benefit. Capricious misuse of power is not aligned with the social contract. So, for example, it would be unethical to coerce vaccination when vaccination does not stop the spread. It also would be unethical to coerce vaccinat…

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

I agree with you, but the social contract argument fails here even if you imagine a fantasy world where it would exist. I try to meet people where they are. Leftists arguments against leftists. Right-wing arguments against the right wing. And social contract arguments against social contractors.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#52

Post by harimau777 »

verisimi wrote: post #47
Consultant32452 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coercive power to actually provide social benefit. Capricious misuse of power is not aligned with the social contract. So, for example, it would be unethical to coerce vaccination when vaccination does not stop the spread. It also would be unethical to coerce vaccinat…

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#53

Post by harimau777 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #32
harimau777 wrote: post #4

It seems to me that these sorts of principles are incomplete if they don't engage with the fact that quarantines are a well established part of the social contract of all nations that I'm aware of. Basically, there's a balance between avoiding coercion and holding people accountable for the externalities of irresponsible behavior. A reasonable tradeoff to me seems to be that people do not have to take precautions lik…

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coercive power to actually provide social benefit. Capricious misuse of power is not aligned with the social contract. So, for example, it would be unethical to coerce vaccination when vaccination does not stop the spread. It also would be unethical to coerce vaccinat…

I don't disagree. However, the article doesn't mention any of those circumstances it just says no coercion.

You fail to take into account unvaccinated people using up hospital space resulting in too little space for responsible members of society.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#54

Post by harimau777 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #48
harimau777 wrote: post #4

It seems to me that these sorts of principles are incomplete if they don't engage with the fact that quarantines are a well established part of the social contract of all nations that I'm aware of. Basically, there's a balance between avoiding coercion and holding people accountable for the externalities of irresponsible behavior. A reasonable tradeoff to me seems to be that people do not have to take precautions lik…

> A reasonable tradeoff to me seems to be that people do not have to take precautions like vaccination and masking but if so they can be restricted from public society If you have this low a bar to holding people accountable for negative externalities, no one would be allowed outside.

In what sense is vaccination and masking a low bar? The vaccine was free and masking takes virtually no effort.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#55

Post by Consultant32452 »

harimau777 wrote: post #53
Consultant32452 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are totally missing the other side's responsibility with regards to the social contract. Part of the social contract is the responsible use of that coercive power to actually provide social benefit. Capricious misuse of power is not aligned with the social contract. So, for example, it would be unethical to coerce vaccination when vaccination does not stop the spread. It also would be unethical to coerce vaccinat…

I don't disagree. However, the article doesn't mention any of those circumstances it just says no coercion. You fail to take into account unvaccinated people using up hospital space resulting in too little space for responsible members of society.

By the time the vaccine was widely available we were in full Omicron territory and there was already no risk to hospitals overflowing.

For background, if it matters to you, I believe the vaccine saved many thousands of lives of elderly people. It probably did not save the lives of any meaningful number of young healthy people because those people were statistically not at risk of covid. So I believe the vaccine was safe enough and effective enough to use, particularly for the elderly and people with certain co-morbidities. Lack of risk stratification is ANOTHER violation of the social contract.

The criminally sinister thing about vaccine mandates is that the people at risk of severe covid were already lined up out the door to get a vaccine. You didn't have to mandate it for anyone, much less the people who were at practically no risk of covid since it would not stop the spread.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#56

Post by Consultant32452 »

harimau777 wrote: post #52
verisimi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#57

Post by verisimi »

harimau777 wrote: post #52
verisimi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination.

We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#58

Post by harimau777 »

verisimi wrote: post #57
harimau777 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination. We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.

I'm not sure I follow. Without a social contract, on what philosophical/moral grounds should I care about anyone else's individual freedom?

If there's no philosophical/moral ground, then why does it matter whether or not something is a fantasy?

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#59

Post by harimau777 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #56
harimau777 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.

Isn't the alternative might makes right; where the strong can force the weak to give 100% of their income?

Re: The Ethical Principles of Public Health

#60

Post by harimau777 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #55
harimau777 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree. However, the article doesn't mention any of those circumstances it just says no coercion. You fail to take into account unvaccinated people using up hospital space resulting in too little space for responsible members of society.

By the time the vaccine was widely available we were in full Omicron territory and there was already no risk to hospitals overflowing. For background, if it matters to you, I believe the vaccine saved many thousands of lives of elderly people. It probably did not save the lives of any meaningful number of young healthy people because those people were statistically not at risk of covid. So I believe the vaccine was s…

That wasn't the case here. The vaccine was available to everyone and the hospitals were overflowing with people who refused to get it.
Post reply on HN