| >If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here. without trying to talk about vaccination and politics, a recent personal mandate, i'd like to bring something up. there is a weird change in scope within your example. You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it.
You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. Sure, got it.
You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible. Well.. wait a minute. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back? Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party? If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers? It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over. And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue. Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too? In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth". |
Just jumping in here to reply to this statement... if you're talking about someone expressing their opinion to others that they shouldn't get the vaccine, the person expressing that opinion isn't responsible if the other person decides not to get the vaccine; the other person is the one who is responsible for their own actions and decisions. It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing.
I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing.