[Serious] Good People

[John 6IX Breezy]

I've come across an idea that I find alarming. (I've no doubt encountered it as a result of the pandemic, but its application is not restricted to it.) 

The idea is this: You are an evil person if you do not make sacrifices for the greater good. As a tangible example: If you do not take the vaccine (and whatever risks are associated with it) you are an evil person by failing to protect others. It is something like forced kindness, perhaps to the exclusion of personal safety and autonomy.

This thread isn't about vaccines, but about this specific argument. There are millions of scenarios that can be enforced using the same argument. China's one child policy is perhaps another example. You sacrifice your fertility for the greater good of others. (I'm not knowledgeable in ethics. My guess is that it is a utilitarian argument. One that values the group above the individual.)

The question: Is this approach to morality beneficial or dangerous? Should there be any limitations to it?

[Silver]

Perhaps these people are confusing selfish for evil. At least that's how I perceive it.

[vulcanlogician]

How much sacrifice a person ought to make is a separate issue from is it okay to coerce people to make "x" sacrifice.


I think they're completely separate and ought to be considered as separate issues. I think that some mandatory sacrifices are fine... taxes etc. Having to obey any law is in some sense a sacrifice.

As for vaccination? All people who can, especially if they have a lot of contact with the public, are morally obliged to get vaccinated. It's the right thing to do.

***

As for utilitarianism, I wouldn't say utilitarianism values the group above the individual. A utilitarian seeks maximally good outcomes. Making one person very happy is good. Making two people exactly that happy is better. (Yes.)

But -to the utilitarian- making one very sad person very happy would be better than making two "already happy people" a little bit happier than they already were.

[Rev. Rye]

Perhaps these people are confusing selfish for evil. At least that's how I perceive it.

Plus, the arguments against, say, the one-child policy are far more sound than the arguments against the COVID-19 vaccine. At any rate, there's been a lot of serious issues resulting from the one-child policy. Taking out the pandemic that's been plaguing the world for well over a year, vs. the autonomy of not taking two brief jabs to the arm (thus undermining the march to herd immunity and making this pandemic go on for longer than it has to).

You can see the asymmetry here, right? The key difference is when you can weigh the utilitarian arguments for and against something and the arguments for one side are all hollow, that's when you really need to listen to a utilitarian imperative.

[brewer]

In a society choices have consequences.

[John 6IX Breezy]

How much sacrifice a person ought to make is a separate issue from is it okay to coerce people to make "x" sacrifice.

I think that's a good distinction. And it begins to expose the core of what I find alarming, namely, the hypocrisy of mistreating people while expecting them to do good. Once people categorize you as a bad person, they find it justified to do bad things to you. The internet is full of videos of people verbally (and sometimes physically) abusing others for not wearing a mask. There's an irony in that which I'm trying to decipher.

One person is doing wrong to someone, because that person is failing to do good for others. Which is worse? (Another example: Celebrities often get donation-shamed.)

[Rev. Rye]

I think it's called an essentialist fallacy. It's too easy to see someone doing something bad, or (in the case of those who refuse to wear masks or take the vaccine) just plain stupid, ask why they're doing it, and assuming the answer is "because they're a bad person." Somehow, the possibility that someone is ignorant or (perhaps more commonly these days) blinded by ideology (and unable to understand that just keeping your head in the sand during a crisis doesn't magically stop said crisis from happening) seems to not occur to many people.

And somehow-er, the possibility that many people are simply too morally indistinguished to be considered good or bad in any meaningful sense appears to be beyond most human minds, at least in my experience.

[arewethereyet]

I don't agree with the concept of evil here.

Making sacrifices for the "greater good" (and who defines what that is?) I don't see as necessary as much as not getting in the way...as in, do no harm.

[Rev. Rye]

I don't agree with the concept of evil here.

Making sacrifices for the "greater good" (and who defines what that is?) I don't see as necessary as much as not getting in the way...as in, do no harm.

The NWA, perhaps?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Taking out the pandemic that's been plaguing the world for well over a year, vs. the autonomy of not taking two brief jabs to the arm (thus undermining the march to herd immunity and making this pandemic go on for longer than it has to).

To reframe those "two jabs" in a way that I know will be controversial at first: We have another word for forcing (or coercing) things into people's body without their consent—it's called rape. They are both a violation of people's bodily autonomy. Perhaps with the only distinction being that we consider one of them necessary and the other unjustified. But there's no doubt in my mind that the physical and psychological aversion that many people have for needles (and other invasive procedures) is of a similar nature. Many people consider it an outright traumatic experience. And unlike consensual sex, I don't think very many people find voluntary vaccinations and their after effects pleasurable. 

People deserve the right to do what they think is in the best interest of their body. And I'm not sure sacrificing that for the best interest of others is a good idea.