Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we, basically, agree on base line - if the bosses choose so to vaccinate everyone, so it will be. Or, one becomes an outcast to much inconvenience.
If I was the owner of the business, if you didn't take the (mandatory) shot, you'd be outcast literally... to the unemployment line!
Refusal to vaccinate would be at the same level as refusing a drug test. Cause for termination.
But the thread title says nothing of moral objectivity. Something being right or wrong doesn't require there being an objective standard. Neither does philosophy have any consensus on whether or not moral objectivity exists.
That you suggest the ambiguity of right vs. wrong 'ought to determine enforcement' (in your previous post #26) is an implication on your part a standard not only exists but it should influence the law as well (which circles back around to my original point in totality re: the limitations of philosophy vs. law).
Ethics are based on moral codes; laws are not i.e. what we feel is philosophically right or wrong (per the thread) is of no relevance to public health and/or laws or guidelines in place to protect it.
That you suggest the ambiguity of right vs. wrong 'ought to determine enforcement' (in your previous post #26) is an implication on your part a standard not only exists but it should influence the law as well
Standards, as in plural. There is a multitude of reasoned positions on what is right and wrong.
If I was the owner of the business, if you didn't take the (mandatory) shot, you'd be outcast literally... to the unemployment line!
Refusal to vaccinate would be at the same level as refusing a drug test. Cause for termination.
That is fine if it becomes the law but do you think its philosophically wrong to tell someone what they can do with their body?
to me its none of your buisness whether a person does drugs or not. If a person does not want to take a vaccine it should be their right.
There is a multitude of reasoned positions on what is right and wrong.
Philosophically, nothing exists as absolute right/wrong (though there are certainly subjective judgements as to what is or isn't, all of which are irrelevant in re: law/immunizations).
Philosophically, nothing exists as absolute right/wrong
As I've mentioned already, it depends on which school of philosophy you belong to, especially since theological thought has an extensive overlap with philosophy.
As I've mentioned already, it depends on which school of philosophy you belong to, especially since theological thought has an extensive overlap with philosophy.
'School of Philosophy' i.e. School of Hard Knocks, lol? Too funny; I don't belong to any 'school of philosophy'.
Theology is not Philosophy - the former being the study of the divine, religious faith and so on; it has even less to do with immunizations/law/this thread than philosophy.
Theology is not Philosophy - the former being the study of the divine, religious faith and so on; it has even less to do with immunizations/law/this thread than philosophy.
There is a huge deal of overlap, including the subject of there possibly being an objective morality.
A good rule of thumb with philosophy - if someone makes a claim, there probably exists a school of thought that disputes it.
I think its going to be mandatory for you to work. We are losing our rights now. The way I look at it is if other people get the vaccine I should not have to because they are protected.
With the covid virus they are using saftey to take away our rights.
You will need to get a vaccine and a digital implant!! The implant will prove that you got the vaccine .
In other words, you are willing for other people to take the risk of the vaccine so you can enjoy the protection of herd immunity risk free.
There is no "implant". The vaccine "ID" is a tattoo visible only under certain wavelengths of light and you will never have to have a vaccine with one if you do not want it. The technology is really directed at countries where vaccine record keeping is lacking, and the ID would keep people from receiving vaccines they have already had that do not need to be repeated.
A good rule of thumb with philosophy - if someone makes a claim, there probably exists a school of thought that disputes it.
I've never heard anyone break down philosophy to 'a rule of thumb' re: claims.
That said, I'm simply disputing a philosophical application to this thread (and your post #26).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
