Recently, I witnessed an Anti-Vaccine Protest. I have often observed at these protests recurring themes and recurring arguments that are meant to support their cause. It is often claimed that they are “Critical Thinkers” and that their logic and reason lead them to conclude that taking a vaccine is a bad idea. Further to this, they will often argue that it restricts their right to freedom if they are coerced or forced to get vaccinated. With the pandemic still going strong, there seem to be many such protests going on.
In this post, I will discuss what I will refer to as the “Freedom Argument,” the argument that suggests getting vaccinated (or being coerced or forced to get vaccinated) goes against their right to freedom. To begin, I will need to clarify what those presenting this argument mean by freedom.
On this website, I have spoken about freedom and free will at length. My understanding of freedom typically relates to an idea of unpredictability; something that is not a part of causal chains of events, like and uncaused cause perhaps. The Freedom Argument’s version of freedom is very different than my understanding.
Having listened to many discussions from protesters, it is my belief that what they mean by freedom is more akin to their perceived right to be able to act as they desire without being restricted in those acts. That is, if one wishes to eat ice cream, they ought to be able to eat ice cream, and that if anyone interferes with that desire, they are restricting the person’s freedom to eat ice cream. With this understanding, freedom would seem to be intimately related to egoism and hedonism, as it seems intimately tied with one’s desires.
In the first case of egoism, I am suggesting that an individual is acting in a self-interested manner. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to act in self-interested ways. To prevent an individual from pursuing self-interested actions, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. The Freedom Argument will suggest that this is a bad thing.
In the second case of hedonism, I am suggesting that an individual is pursuing fulfillment of their desires, especially pleasure. In the case of the Freedom Argument, one is intended to be free to pursue their own desires and pleasures. To prevent an individual from pursuing their pleasures, one is restricting that individual’s freedom. Again, the Freedom Argument will suggest this is a bad thing.
There is often one additional caveat that is added to the Freedom Argument, though it may be unspoken in many cases. The idea that to pursue one’s desires and self-interest is considered acceptable (and even desirable) in all circumstances, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others. That is, if my action affects only me and no one else (in any significant way), then I ought to be free to pursue that action without restriction. To put this another way, if my action will not cause any negative effects on those around me, there is no reason for others to restrict my action.
It is this last point that muddles up most of the argument, I think. To be self-interested and to pursue one’s desires within and of themselves seems unproblematic. It may even be argued that all people are already self-interested and pursuing their desires presently. There are complicated arguments that suggest helping others is simply a pathway to self-interestedness and that such actions may, in fact, lead to individual pleasure. However, in the pursuit of desire and pleasure, especially in our modern world, it is frequently incumbent to make others suffer.
I imagine the last statement I made will be met with a great deal of resistance. One might suggest that the act of eating ice cream, for example, causes no suffering to any one. However, I would raise the question of how one might gain the opportunity to eat ice cream. The ice cream must be generated by some means. Someone will have to milk a cow, or similar mammal, accumulate the dairy product, process it, reduce its temperature, mix in other ingredients, (these other ingredients will have their own story to tell regarding how they come about as well), stored, presented, sold, prepared, and numerous other activities. My point is that the process behind the generation of ice cream is quite long and complicated. There are many things one might consider along the path of that process, including the well-being of the cow (or other mammal), the people who partake of each step of the process, and the eventual process of acquisition. Are we so certain that no one in that entire process suffered so that one might enjoy ice cream?
In our modern consumerist world (at least the part of the world where I reside), it may be suggested that working toward the production of a product does not count as suffering. After all, the people partaking of the process of manufacture are provided compensation for their labours. While I might agree that some people may truly enjoy their work and receive arguably appropriate compensation for that work, I have often observed that this is not the case. That many people are not very happy with their employment situations, and that the conditions in which they work under are less than ideal. Furthermore, compensation is frequently much less than what those people deserve. This last point, I admit, is my opinion; there is no objective measure of valuation that one can rely upon to ensure that compensation for labour is fair.
My ice cream example does, I admit, seem a little taxed. If the cow is sustainably and ethically farmed, if the farmer and his family are happy, if everyone in every step of the process is not unduly taxed during the process, it seems unproblematic for one to eat ice cream in a manner that does not cause suffering. Can the same be said regarding all other aspects of our lives? Are our clothes all so easily manufactured? Or our homes? Or our smartphones?
It might seem I have gone off on a tangent here, but I assure you I have not. Those individuals who participate in the process that eventually results in the shoes you place on your feet are frequently unable to exercise their freedom in the manner I have outlined above. Their suffering is a result of poor working conditions as well and a severe lack of appropriate compensation. In some cases, they may even be forced to work, not having any other live options. Similar situations occur in most aspects of Western Society. There is a great disconnect between those who utilize products and services, and the sources of those same products and services. The greater the disconnect, the less likely one may feel the associations that exist between their actions and the consequences of their actions.
This all may seem quite preachy and contrived, so I will provide a much, much simpler example that I observed during the protest that I referred to at the outset of this article. During the protest, one of the protesters had a megaphone and decided to exercise his freedom by walking down the middle of a busy street. Through the megaphone, he indicated that he was exercising his freedom to walk upon the street, and that if anyone were to prevent him from doing so, they would be restricting his freedom. It was his way of presenting his evidence of his Freedom Argument.
Unfortunately, there resulted a long line up of cars behind him as he walked. Numerous vehicles, occupied by numerous individuals, who were simply trying to exercise their freedom to drive on the street. The protester’s actions, while possibly a manifestation of his own freedom, incurred the suffering of others. Was his freedom somehow more valuable or important than the freedom of the drivers on the street?
In our world, we often live within societies with laws and rules. Those laws and rules are, I think, intended to provide a vehicle for cooperation between people, as well as an opportunity to allow each participant in the rules to manifest a limited freedom. That is to say, it required quite a cooperative effort by many, many individuals to produce the street that the protester and drivers all were trying to use. No one person owns that street; it belongs to all those who helped build it, which included all the tax payers. With the street being essentially a shared resource, coming up with a set of rules to govern its use seems a fair way to ensure that all those who partook of its creation can all enjoy its use. (I will admit that the precise nature of the laws and rules may require some adjustment to ensure fairness across all individuals, but the idea of having laws and rules I do not think is in dispute).
The protester walking down the middle of the street infringes on the rules of the street’s use, namely the protester is “jaywalking.” By choosing to break the agreed upon rule governing the use of the street, the protester is suggesting that his freedom to walk down the street, in spite of the rules, is more important or more valuable than the freedom of those driving their vehicles on the street.
Ultimately the point I am trying to make is that the exercising of a freedom by one, often restricts the freedom of others, unless the freedom being exercised somehow does not affect others. In the case of a pandemic and vaccination, the purpose of vaccination is to collectively provide defensive measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. When individuals decide not to get vaccinated, they are not only affecting themselves, they are affecting everyone around them with their choice. Their decision to exercise their freedom and not get vaccinated actually restricts the freedom of others, including those who chose to get vaccinated.
The largest weakness of the Freedom Argument, in my opinion, is the lack of consideration of others. For me to be free, others must have their freedom restricted. A better argument might suggest that we are all not entirely free, but free in a limited capacity. I allow my freedom to be restricted in a small way, and you do as well, such that we both can share a similar level of freedom. A compromise of a sort. It seems to me to be better that we all share a limited freedom, than for some to hold onto an unrestricted freedom while many receive no freedom at all.