Category: philosophy

bookmark_borderTo the person who hacked GiveSendGo

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, a despicable excuse for a human being (or group of despicable excuses for human beings) decided to attack and forcibly shut down the fundraising website GiveSendGo due to the fact that GiveSendGo is used to raise money for pro-individual-rights causes. If this sounds completely despicable, that’s because it is.

The normal GiveSendGo home page was temporarily replaced with a video that stated the following:

“Attention GiveSendGo grifters and hatriots: The Canadian government has informed you that the money you assholes raised to fund an insurrection is frozen. TD Bank has frozen several accounts. You helped fund the January 6th insurrection in the US. You helped fund an insurrection in Ottawa. In fact, you are committed to funding anything that keeps the raging fire of misinformation going until that it (sic) burns the world’s collective democracies down. On behalf of sane people worldwide who wish to continue living in a democracy, I am now telling you that GiveSendGo itself is frozen. A convoy of trucks to protest vaccine requirements?”

At this point, I was unable to stomach reading any more of this morally grotesque message, so I stopped. 

The fact that this incident was allowed to occur exemplifies the appalling state of our world, in which individual liberty is attacked and ridiculed, while compliance and conformity are worshipped and fetishized. Bigotry is called inclusion, uniformity is called diversity, freedom is called authoritarianism, racism is called anti-racism, and fascism is called anti-fascism. 

There are so many things wrong with this despicable message, not to mention the hacker’s despicable actions, that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, people protesting against vaccine mandates are neither grifters, nor “hatriots,” nor assholes. 

Second, the hacker’s sentiments about “insurrection” demonstrate utter mindlessness and moral bankruptcy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is nothing intrinsically bad about an insurrection. An insurrection is a rebellion against authority. When authority is acting unjustly, which it currently is in almost every country in the world, an insurrection is a good thing, not a bad thing. An insurrection is brave, heroic, and honorable. Both the January 6th protesters and the Freedom Convoy truckers should be lauded and supported, not insulted and ridiculed, for they are fighting back against unjust authority. It may well be true that users of GiveSendGo have helped to fund insurrections. But the fact that someone would presume this to be a bad thing says more about that person than it does about the causes to which GiveSendGo users donate. Specifically, it says that the person is an authoritarian. It says that the person values compliance with authority, as opposed to individuality, justice, or thinking for oneself. Any person who uses the word “insurrection” as an insult is presuming that rebelling against authority is intrinsically bad, which means that said person is devoid of an independent mind, devoid of a moral compass, and devoid of a soul. 

In addition to this, I am incredibly disturbed by the sentiments about “sane people” who “wish to continue living in a democracy.” Why is living in a democracy considered to be a good thing, anyway? A democracy is simply a society in which people elect their leaders. Just as there is nothing intrinsically bad about an insurrection, there is nothing about this method of choosing leaders that makes it inherently superior to others. Going along with the all-too-common mindset that compliance is good and rebellion bad, the despicable excuse for a human being who hacked GiveSendGo clearly holds the (also all-too-common) mindset that democracy is what matters and not individual rights. This “person” ridicules the idea of a convoy of trucks protesting against vaccine requirements, something that every person should not only not ridicule, but actively support. This “person” considers living in a democracy – a neutral state – to be of paramount importance while dismissing the right to make medical decisions about one’s own body – a fundamental requirement for having a life that is worth living – as frivolous and unimportant. Wishing to live in a democracy where people are forced to undergo medical procedures against their will is not sane; it is morally repugnant. If the world’s collective democracies implement policies that require people to get a medical procedure as a condition of being allowed to participate in public life, then they deserve to burn down. Yet unfortunately, abhorrent views like those of the hacker(s) have become the majority, establishment, mainstream views of our society, and those who hold them control the narrative, the framing of the debate, and all of our major institutions. 

In conclusion, not only are the actions of the hacker(s) morally wrong because they demonstrate intolerance for the viewpoints of others; they are morally wrong on an even deeper level, because the viewpoint being held in such contempt is in reality the only morally acceptable viewpoint on the issue in question. The viewpoint being held in such contempt is the viewpoint that people should not be forced to undergo medical procedures against their will. That is a viewpoint with which everyone should be in unanimous agreement. Causes such as the Freedom Convoy should not even be considered controversial, let alone considered so unacceptable that hackers take it upon themselves to forcibly shut down any fundraising platforms that fail to discriminate against such causes. The actions of the hacker(s) are so morally reprehensible that they shock the conscience. I do not exaggerate when I say that these actions leave me sick to my stomach, shaking, struggling to breathe, and searching with mixed success for words strong enough to accurately convey my horror, rage, and disgust. It is difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that a human being (or worse, multiple human beings) would actually choose to act this way. 

The best I can do is to say that the person (or people) who decided to forcibly shut down a website for allowing money to be raised for causes with which said person disagrees is the true asshole. That person is the true grifter. That person is the one who is truly filled with hate. That person is the epitome of bigotry, intolerance, brutality, cruelty, nastiness, authoritarianism, and mindless conformity. That person is utter scum and deserves to be sentenced to death and to burn in hell for the rest of time. 

bookmark_borderThe immorality of the Canadian government

Posted on by Marissa

It shouldn’t even need to be stated that the actions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian government in response to the Freedom Convoy are morally wrong. Trudeau recently requested, and the Canadian Parliament granted him, emergency powers, which give him the ability, among other things, to freeze citizens’ bank accounts and seize their funds.

I am on the email list of the Campaign for Liberty, and they (correctly) wrote in a recent email: “This has shocking implications for free speech. In an instant, Canada went from a nation that honors free speech to a nation where the government can seize citizens’ property, savings, and livelihood for even donating to an effort whose viewpoints fall outside the accepted norm… We are talking about the government taking everything from working-class families – just for supporting free speech. The chilling effect it will have is obvious – and that’s the point.”

The Canadian government’s actions do indeed violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech. For people to be punished with financial destruction for the “crime” of political dissent is despicable. But that is not the worst thing about these actions. The situation becomes even more morally problematic when one considers the fact that the protesters being targeted by these brutal measures are not just any protesters. They are particularly honorable and brave protesters, and their cause is as worthy and morally right as any cause that can be imagined. For these protesters are demonstrating against government policies that force people to undergo medical procedures against their will.

It is entirely correct to condemn the seizing of people’s money for expressing viewpoints that fall outside the accepted norm. But the even bigger problem is the fact that the viewpoints in question fall outside the accepted norm in the first place. In a morally decent society, everyone would be in agreement that the government should not force people to undergo medical procedures. In a morally decent society, the viewpoints of the Freedom Convoy and its supporters would be within the accepted norm, not outside it. In a morally decent society, support for vaccine mandates would be outside the accepted norm, and those who advocate for medical procedures to be forced on their fellow citizens would be the ones facing the possibility of having their bank accounts frozen and assets seized. 

The atrocities happening in Canada are immoral because of their chilling effect on free speech, but they are even more immoral because of the content of the speech that is being suppressed. The members of the Freedom Convoy are standing up for people’s rights to make their own medical decisions. Speech in support of this cause is exactly what the world desperately needs more of, and protests and demonstrations in support of this cause should be unanimously supported. Punishing people for expressing their views is unquestionably wrong, but punishing people for expressing these views is even more wrong. No viewpoint is less deserving of punishment, less deserving of suppression, and less deserving of being chilled, than opposition to vaccine mandates.

The fact that we live in a world where support for forced medical procedures is the accepted norm is beyond disturbing. The actions of Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament are horrific not only because they are an assault on freedom of speech in general, but also because they are an assault specifically on people who are standing up for bodily autonomy and medical freedom.

bookmark_borderIncreased vaccination rates are nothing to celebrate

Posted on by Marissa

Recently I saw a video of a press conference during which, about a week after Boston implemented a vaccine mandate for restaurants, gyms, theaters, museums, and sporting events, city officials praised the resulting increase in the city’s vaccination rate. The mayor and public health officials used words such as “hopeful” and “encouraging” to describe this state of affairs.

“I would say there is quite a bit of reason to be ‘hopeful.’ For several weeks in December and into early January, our vaccination rates didn’t increase. More recently we have seen a significant increase in vaccination uptake. From the first or second week, we noticed a 36% increase…”

(source: Massachusetts Says No)

In my opinion, there is nothing to celebrate in this situation. Essentially, city leaders introduced a policy forcing people to do something, and then shortly after the policy went into effect, they brag about the fact that the policy succeeded in forcing people to do the thing. 

Forcing people to do something – or coercing people, or bullying people, or pressuring people – is not good. It is not something that anyone should be bragging about. It is not something that anyone should be celebrating. It is not hopeful. It is not encouraging.

Since May 2021, the Covid vaccine has been easily available to anyone who wishes to get it. It is highly likely that the people who received the vaccine in mid January did so not because they wanted to, but because of the mandate that went into effect on January 15.

Each and every instance of someone getting a medical procedure that they don’t really want is a tragedy. The fact that so many people seem to have gotten the Covid vaccine as a result of the city’s mandate makes my heart sick. The thought of people feeling reluctant to get the vaccine, but feeling that they have no choice but to get it, is depressing and demoralizing. No one should ever have to face a situation in which they have to get a medical procedure in order to keep their job, participate in an activity, or go about their everyday life. 

The fact that Mayor Wu and her administration consider this situation to be “hopeful” and “encouraging” is sickening, perverted, and grotesque.

bookmark_borderA protest is not a temper tantrum

Posted on by Marissa

One of my biggest pet peeves is when people refer to a protest with which they disagree as a “temper tantrum.”

An example of this is a recent opinion piece describing the Freedom Convoy as a “mass temper tantrum” (via Instagram).

First of all, I’m not sure why this columnist decided to point out that the convoy “won’t end the pandemic.” The goal of the protest isn’t to end the pandemic; it’s to end government policies that violate people’s rights. By pointing out that a pro-freedom protest won’t end the pandemic, this columnist is (falsely) presuming the truth of what they are trying to prove, namely that ending the pandemic is the only thing that matters, that no goals other than ending the pandemic might possibly exist, and that anything that does not contribute towards ending the pandemic is purposeless. 

Second and more importantly, how exactly is a protest a “mass temper tantrum”? The fact that a particular person does not agree with a protest does not make that protest a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum is a specific thing, not simply any protest with which someone disagrees. The fact that someone would use this term to characterize a protest against government policies that take away people’s rights to make their own medical decisions is absolutely despicable. It is also hypocritical, because somehow I doubt that any of those calling the Freedom Convoy a “temper tantrum” used the same words to describe the BLM riots during which people violently destroyed irreplaceable works of art because a police officer killed someone who happened to be black (a situation in which the phrase “temper tantrum” would be a lot more appropriate).

The practice of calling a protest with which one disagrees a “temper tantrum” needs to end yesterday. It is completely unacceptable, and anyone who does it should be immediately fired.

(By the way, with regards to the member of the Freedom Convoy who was photographed holding a Confederate flag, I agree with the Virginia Flaggers, who wrote that the flag is “a universal symbol of rebellion against tyranny.”)

bookmark_borderJustin Trudeau’s totalitarianism should not be tolerated

Posted on by Marissa

I saw the following quote by Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau on social media recently and found it extremely disturbing. Below, I will explain why.

First of all, Trudeau claims that people who oppose forcing everyone to get the Covid vaccine “don’t believe in science or progress.” This makes no sense. A person’s stance on vaccine mandates has nothing to do with science; it has to do with morality. Even if the science showed Covid vaccines to be 100% effective and 100% risk-free (which it does not), it wouldn’t be okay to require people to get them, because requiring people to get medical procedures is always wrong. Opposing vaccine mandates does not indicate that a person does not believe in science; it indicates that the person (unlike Trudeau, apparently) believes in moral right and wrong. As for progress, Trudeau might be correct in claiming that vaccine mandate opponents don’t believe in progress. But given the way the world has been trending over the past two years, opposing progress is not a bad thing, but a good thing! The world is moving towards totalitarianism, and further progress down this path should be opposed by all morally decent people.

Second, Trudeau claims that people who oppose forcing everyone to get the Covid vaccine are “very often misogynistic and racist.” This claim is completely unsupported by logic or evidence. The question of whether or not people should be required to get the Covid vaccine has nothing to do with gender or race; therefore people who oppose vaccine mandates are no more likely to be misogynistic or racist than people who support vaccine mandates.

Third, contrary to Trudeau’s claims, neither he nor the Canadian people as a whole gets to make a choice about whether or not to “tolerate these people.” People have a fundamental right to make their own medical decisions; therefore everyone has a moral obligation to tolerate people who make different medical decisions than they do. If by “these people,” Trudeau means not only people who opt against the vaccine, but people who philosophically oppose vaccine mandates, then his statement is even more objectionable. Opposing vaccine mandates is the morally correct stance; therefore everyone is obligated not only to tolerate people with this stance, but to support them and agree with them! For someone with a morally wrong point of view to ask whether or not he should “tolerate” people with the morally right point of view is preposterous.

The real question is whether people should tolerate those who, like Trudeau, believe that it is okay to force people to undergo medical procedures. I suggest that the answer should be no. 

bookmark_borderThe stupidest comment ever made?

Posted on by Marissa

A few months ago, NHL player Mike Fisher made an awesome Instagram post expressing his support for medical freedom and non-discrimination.

Unfortunately, someone named “nada_alghz” recently decided to make what is quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever seen in my life.

First, she called the Freedom Convoy, an inspiring and beautiful protest against medical mandates in Canada, a “scam,” which is false and unsupported by any evidence that I am aware of.

Second, she claims that supporting an inspiring and beautiful protest against medical mandates is the same thing as supporting discrimination and racism, which is not only false but preposterous. Opposing medical mandates has nothing to do with race. Additionally, because medical mandates are discriminatory, opposing medical mandates is the opposite of supporting discrimination.

So to sum up, in response to an excellent and thoughtful post by Fisher, Nada decided to leave a mean-spirited, logically unsound, vicious, and nasty comment. It is unacceptable that we live in a world where mindless and authoritarian people like this are allowed a platform on which to express their views, while people who have done nothing wrong, such as Donald Trump, Robert Malone, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, are not. Constantly seeing comments like this is mentally exhausting and needs to stop yesterday.

bookmark_borderCommunalism and individualism

Posted on by Marissa

Something that is said over and over again in our society is that there is too much emphasis on individualism, and not enough emphasis on community. In other words, there is too much emphasis on “me” and not enough emphasis on “we.”

Take, for example, a recent Instagram post by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which she wrote: “Community and collective good is our best shot through our greatest challenges – way more than discorded acts of ‘rugged individualism’ and the bootstrap propaganda that we’ve been spoon-fed since birth.” Ocasio-Cortez also claimed that “much of the emphasis of media conversations on COVID are individualistic.” 

I could not disagree more strongly with these sentiments.

When I look at the world around me, the vast majority of the propaganda being spoon-fed to people emphasizes communalism, togetherness, selflessness, giving, and caring about others. The concepts of individualism and individual rights are underappreciated in today’s society. Contrary to AOC’s claim, almost every institution in our society – from schools to churches to governments to charitable organizations – places an enormous amount of emphasis on community and collective good, at the expense of the individual.

This is particularly true with regards to the Covid pandemic. “We’re all in this together,” goes the familiar slogan. Ad nauseam, people are urged to sacrifice for the greater good and to “do your part” in ending the pandemic. Anyone who dares to disobey or even question the rules made by public health experts is condemned as selfish. With all the emphasis on public health, individual rights have been lost. Individualism has been almost completely abandoned in favor of community and collective good. 

And that is unfortunate, because individualism, not community or collective good, is the key to a good world. Individualism is the key to happiness, fulfillment, and a life worth living. 

Individualism does not need to be “rugged,” as AOC describes it. Individualism means that each person is different, and what is right for one person may not be right for another. Individualism means that that each person has the fundamental right to live according to his/her values, tastes, desires, needs, and preferences. This might mean living off the land, or driving a pickup truck, or owning lots of guns, as seems to be the popular stereotype. Alternatively, it might mean living in a big city, riding the train, working at a grocery store, and doing art in one’s free time, to give a random example. Individualism might mean holding unpopular opinions and expressing them on social media. It might mean dressing in a unique way, being interested in things that are considered weird or uncool, or simply being quirky or eccentric. Whatever form it takes, individualism means that people get to make their own decisions about their own lives. People get to live where they want, use their money to buy the things that they want, wear what they want, eat and drink what they want, do the activities that they want, get the medical procedures that they want, et cetera. 

A world in which people are told to sacrifice their own goals for the public good is a world in which no one gets what they want. A world in which people are told to sacrifice their happiness and well-being for that of others is a world in which no one is happy. Without the freedom to make one’s own decisions, and to live as one pleases, there is no purpose in being alive at all. 

There is quite enough emphasis on community and collective good. In our public-health-obsessed society, individualism gets a bad rap, and its proponents are all too frequently dismissed as selfish, entitled, ignorant, and stupid. A world that puts individual rights first may be a more dangerous place, but it is the only type of world in which true happiness is possible and in which life is worth living. The answer to what ails our country and our world is more individualism, not less. 

bookmark_borderThe slippery slope of vaccine requirements

Posted on by Marissa

Numerous times, I’ve heard people make various versions of the following argument:

Requiring Y in order to do X is not the same thing as forcing people to do Y, because people can simply not do X.

Or, put slightly differently:

Requiring Y in order to do X is not the same thing as forcing people to do Y, because people consent to Y when they choose X.

For example…

  • Requiring the Covid vaccine in order to attend a concert does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to the concert.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to attend a Bruins or Celtics game does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to any games.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to eat inside a restaurant does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not go to restaurants, or sit outside on the patio, or get takeout instead.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to go to a gym does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can go for a run or work out at home instead.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to go into a grocery store does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can order groceries using Instacart, Amazon, or Peapod.
  • For a country to require the vaccine for all incoming travelers does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not travel to that country.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to board an airplane does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply not travel.
  • For the federal government to require the vaccine in order to work in the medical field does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can work in a different field.
  • For an employer to require the vaccine does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because no one is forced to work for that particular company.
  • For a college to require the vaccine does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because no one is forced to attend that particular college.
  • For OSHA to require the vaccine in order to work at a company with 100 or more employees does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can choose to work at a smaller company.
  • For a local government to require the vaccine in order to work at any company does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply move to a different city, or choose not to work.
  • Requiring the vaccine in order to receive Social Security benefits, or welfare benefits, does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply forego those benefits.
  • For a doctor to require the vaccine of their patients does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can just switch to a different doctor.
  • For health insurance companies to charge extra to non-vaccinated people does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can just pay the extra money.
  • Ordering a lockdown for non-vaccinated people does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply stay locked down inside your home.
  • For the government to require the vaccine for everyone and impose fines on those who do not comply does not force anyone to get the vaccine, because you can simply pay the fine.

As these examples show, depending on what the “X” is, the difficulty of avoiding doing it, and therefore avoiding a situation in which one is required to do “Y,” varies greatly.

If one particular concert requires proof of vaccination, then it’s not too burdensome to forego the concert. If one particular restaurant or bar requires proof of vaccination, then it’s not too burdensome to choose a different restaurant or bar instead. But what if your favorite professional sports team decides to require proof of vaccination to attend games? You could, of course, stop attending games, but if you love the team, are used to attending games frequently, and really look forward to the games, this would be a big sacrifice. But still, no one needs to attend professional sporting events. It’s not an essential service.

But then what happens if your local government passes a vaccine mandate for indoor recreational spaces such as restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, and museums? None of these things are necessary to live. You can make all your meals at home, and exercise at home as well. Perhaps in order to exercise at home you will need to invest in weights and maybe an exercise bike, because you don’t own any exercise equipment. What if you can’t afford this? One might argue that you could run outside, but what if it’s winter and it’s too cold to comfortably do so? One might argue that you could just forego exercising, and accept becoming out of shape and unhealthy, but what if fitness is very important to you? Not to mention the fact that with restaurants, bars, theaters, and museums off-limits, your recreational activities will be very limited, which will take a toll on your quality of life. Your relationships will likely be harmed as well, because you will need to either make up an excuse or explain your vaccination decision to your friends if you are invited to a get-together at any of these venues.

Then what happens if, hypothetically, vaccination becomes required in order to enter grocery stores? You could have groceries delivered to your home, but this is more expensive. What if you are very low-income and cannot afford this added cost?

On a different note, what happens if your state government requires vaccination for all large events, including weddings and family reunions? What if you are invited to the wedding of a close friend or relative? How would you feel about having to miss such a once in a lifetime event? How would you explain your absence to your friends and family, and how would they react?

Now, let’s talk professional life. What if you are a high school student applying to colleges, and all of the colleges that are conveniently located and offer your desired major require the vaccine? Should you move across the country for school? Should you choose a small, obscure college that doesn’t offer the program that you want? Or should you forego college entirely, even if you worked hard to get excellent grades and always planned on going to college? What if you planned on going into the medical field, only to find that the vaccine is now required for any job in a medical setting? You could always choose a different career field, but what if being a doctor or nurse is your calling, and there is no other career that would be as fulfilling for you?

What if you are in the process of applying for jobs? If there is a particular company that requires vaccination, then you can just avoid applying to that company, but the more companies that implement vaccine requirements, the more difficult your job search will be. You will have fewer options, your search will likely take longer, and you will face higher odds of having to settle for a job that is non-ideal in terms of pay, duties, or location. What if you need to steer clear of any company with 100 or more employees because OSHA has mandated the vaccine for all employees at such companies? Most likely you would still be able to find a job eventually, but doing so would be all the more difficult with so many options eliminated.

What if you are currently at a job that you love, and your employer implements a vaccine mandate? What if your profession requires significant amounts of education and training, and you now need to start over in an entirely new career, meaning that your education and training are now wasted?

Clearly, the more companies, activities, events, locations, and career options that require the vaccine, the more pressured, coerced, and forced people will feel into getting it. It will become more and more difficult for non-vaccinated people to plot a course through life. Avoiding the requirements will become more and more burdensome, inconvenient, and difficult and will require more and more sacrifices. The world will become more and more like an obstacle course, with more hoops to jump through and a metaphorical noose gradually tightening around one’s neck. Some vaccine requirements are clearly worse than others; for example, requiring the vaccine for a concert is not as bad as requiring it for the subway, bus, or grocery store. It is impossible to pinpoint the exact point on the continuum at which one can say that people are forced into getting the vaccine. But every vaccine requirement is a step towards that point. Any vaccine requirement is a step in the wrong direction.

That is why you should be able to do anything you want without having to get a vaccine in order to do so. People have a fundamental right to decide whether or not to get any medical procedure. If the decision to forego a medical procedure is punished by having activities, events, locations, or career options taken away, then it can no longer be said that people are truly free to decide. Some vaccine requirements violate people’s rights more severely than others, but all vaccine requirements violate rights. Some people claim, condescendingly, that vaccine mandates are not coercive but merely a matter of “the unvaccinated” facing “consequences” for their decisions. But the decision to get a vaccine and the decision not to get a vaccine must be treated equally, because both are equally good and equally valid decisions. Any disparate treatment amounts to punishing people who have done nothing wrong and is therefore unjust. No one should have to forego a job, an education, a mode of transit, a travel destination, an event, a meal, a game, or a recreational activity because of their personal medical decision. No one should have to sacrifice money, time, convenience, fitness, relationships, fun, or happiness for the “privilege” of declining a shot. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated people should have all the same activities, opportunities, and career options available. Only then will people truly have medical liberty.

bookmark_borderBiden urges companies to violate employees’ rights in response to SCOTUS ruling

Posted on by Marissa

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the federal vaccine mandate for companies with over 100 employees, Joe Biden unsurprisingly made some authoritarian comments.

Here is what Biden said:

“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has chosen to block common-sense life-saving requirements for employees at large businesses that were grounded squarely in both science and the law. This emergency standard allowed employers to require vaccinations or to permit workers to refuse to be vaccinated, so long as they were tested once a week and wore a mask at work: a very modest burden. As a result of the Court’s decision, it is now up to States and individual employers to determine whether to make their workplaces as safe as possible for employees, and whether their businesses will be safe for consumers during this pandemic by requiring employees to take the simple and effective step of getting vaccinated. The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure, but that does not stop me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans’ health and economy. I call on business leaders to immediately join those who have already stepped up – including one third of Fortune 100 companies – and institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, customers, and communities.”

First of all, although not the least bit surprising given that the vaccine mandate was instituted by OSHA at Biden’s urging, it’s still difficult for me to comprehend how anyone could be disappointed at a ruling protecting individual rights from an egregious violation. It’s notable that Biden made no mention of morality, individual rights, or liberty in his address. He describes vaccine mandates as “life-saving,” “common-sense,” and “grounded squarely in both science and the law.” These things might be true (although the majority of the SCOTUS justices would disagree with the “grounded in the law” part), but none of them make it okay to require people to get a vaccine as a condition of employment. Doing so violates people’s rights and is therefore morally wrong. But clearly, the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their bodies and lives are not particularly important to Biden.

It is telling that Biden characterizes the decision of whether individual businesses are going institute vaccine mandates as a decision about making businesses safe for employees and consumers and protecting people’s health and the economy. The debate over vaccine mandates is fundamentally a question of whether or not businesses are going to violate the rights of their employees. Although health, safety, and a booming economy are all good things to have, none of these things is as important as protecting individual rights. (With regards to Biden’s point about protecting workers, customers, and communities, I believe that forcing workers to do something they do not want to do is the opposite of protecting them, as I explained in a previous blog post.) Contrary to what Biden claims, instituting vaccine mandates is not “the right thing,” but the wrong thing. Instituting vaccine mandates is not “stepping up,” as Biden characterizes it, but rather an act of aggression against employees.

Thanks to the First Amendment, Biden does have a legal right to use his voice to encourage businesses to do the wrong thing. He does have a legal right to advocate that companies violate the rights of their employees. But that does not make it morally right of him to do so. 

The most disturbing part of Biden’s comments was his characterization of the vaccine-or-test requirement as a “very modest burden.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither shots nor Covid tests are particularly invasive medical procedures, but that does not make it okay to require them as a condition of employment. Requiring people to provide documentation that they’ve undergone a medical procedure is demeaning, degrading, and dehumanizing. It takes away privacy, it takes away liberty, and it takes away human dignity. When an employer has the power to decide what medical interventions an individual person must get, that individual person is deprived of the right to govern his/her body and his/her life. What is at issue here is not a specific vaccine, nor the act of having one’s nose swabbed. It is the concept of bodily autonomy and self-ownership. It is the fundamental right to make one’s own medical decisions, and that includes the right to decline any medical intervention. Although getting a shot or getting one’s nose swabbed may not be a big deal in itself, the loss of the freedom to independently make medical decisions is absolutely a big deal.

To be forced to submit to medical procedures in order to keep one’s job means to lose one’s dignity, one’s autonomy, and one’s ownership of one’s body. This is far from a “modest burden.”

bookmark_borderYes, forcing people to get medical procedures is immoral

Posted on by Marissa

In these times of totalitarianism, one thing I am grateful for is that I am not a college student. The conditions that college students are subjected to in an effort to prevent the spread of Covid are beyond ridiculous. As journalist and commentator Megyn Kelly pointed out, using Johns Hopkins University as an example, the rules imposed on students are truly immoral. 

Unfortunately, many people disagree that the measures imposed by Johns Hopkins and other colleges and universities are immoral, as evidenced by tweets like the one below:

Contrary to what the above person claims, requiring people to undergo medical procedures in order to attend school is, indeed, immoral. People have a fundamental right to make their own medical decisions, and requiring people to receive a vaccine or undergo Covid testing – let alone both – in order to go to college violates this right. Colleges should have no such thing as a “Vaccine Management System,” as Johns Hopkins refers to in the above letter, because which vaccines (if any) students receive is none of the college’s business.

Additionally, to require a specific type of mask, or two masks, is excessive. Places have a right to require masks, but one mask is plenty, and people should be able to decide which type of mask to wear. 

So, yes, it is immoral that a school would “embrace science and take every precaution to keep students safe,” because by embracing science and safety, Johns Hopkins (along with all colleges and universities that take similar measures) is rejecting basic human rights. 

To answer the question of why someone would allow students to take an unnecessary risk, the answer is simple. People have the right to take whatever risks they want, so there is a fundamental moral obligation to allow others to take unnecessary risks. Each individual person gets to make his or her own determination of which risks make sense to take and which do not. No person has the right to tell others that they are not allowed to take a risk because it is “unnecessary.”

I fail to see how respecting students’ basic rights constitutes “ignoring” what one learned. Does the above tweeter really think that unless one forces one’s own preferences and risk tolerance onto others, one is ignoring what one learned? Does he actually think that the purpose of getting an education is to violate the rights of other people? Silly me, I thought that the purpose of education was to gain knowledge, and possibly to share that knowledge with others. Sharing knowledge with others is not the same as telling them which actions they should take, let alone requiring them to take certain safety precautions in order to be allowed to attend school. The job of professors and college administrators is to share knowledge so that students can use that knowledge to make their own decisions.

In conclusion, it does not constitute “ignoring what you learned” to respect others’ rights, and it is utterly nonsensical than anyone would claim that it does. Violating the rights of other people is not a requirement for making one’s education worthwhile as this person seems nonsensically to be claiming; it is immoral. Respecting people’s rights to make their own medical decisions is a basic moral obligation, which far too many colleges (and companies and organizations and government entities) are failing to meet.