In the heated debate over vaccination mandates, celebrities have not hesitated to raise their voices. Most prominently, Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic has stated that he would rather not play tennis than get the vaccine needed to play. And Joe Rogan has used his hugely popular podcast to spread misinformation about vaccines, saying the vaccine can alter your genes.
While some resistance stems from misinformation or distrust of the vaccines, others are rooted in concerns about bodily autonomy. In January 2022, actress Evangeline Lilly attended a rally protesting vaccination requirements in the name of physical sovereignty. Claiming she was “pro-choice,” she explained, “I don’t think anyone should ever be forced to inject their body against their will. Comedian Rob Schneider echoed that reasoning, proclaiming “My body, my choice” in a tweet. Actor LaKeith Stanfield expressed in a now-deleted Instagram post that vaccines should be strictly a matter of “personal choice.” These celebrities refuse to be asked by the state or other institutions to get the vaccine, claiming that this should be left to individual choice.
This claim is of particular interest to me as an ethicist who recently co-authored a research paper evaluating the appropriation of the “my body, my choice” argument by the anti-vaccination mandate activists of the abortion rights movement. In this paper, I argue that those who oppose vaccination requirements on the grounds of physical autonomy have an even greater reason to oppose abortion restrictions because they impose far greater restrictions on physical autonomy. Therefore, being against vaccines but against abortion on grounds of bodily autonomy is not a coherent position.
The celebrity claim “My body, my choice” against vaccination is another matter. Celebrities have great influence on others, which can have repercussions that go beyond your own health.
Anyone can contract COVID-19 and risk spreading the virus to others. The spread of COVID-19 puts them at risk of serious harm, including death, hospitalization, or long-term illness and disability.
` Photo/Kamran Jebreili
Serbian tennis star Novak Djokovic has said he would rather not take part in tennis tournaments than get the vaccine needed to play.
In fact, celebrities have become victims of COVID-19 themselves. The disease has stricken singer-songwriter John Prine, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and reportedly legendary entertainer Meat Loaf.
While liberal societies like the US generally favor the freedom to make individual choices, even when ill-advised, they also advocate a ban on harming others. According to the philosopher John Stuart Mill, people are free to do whatever they want, except where they might harm one another.
Mill’s damage principle has two components. First, there is the duty not to harm others. But second, Mill claims that enforcing this duty is the only legitimate reason to limit people’s freedoms.
The first part, the duty not to cause harm, is not disputed. It is in people’s rational best interest to support a mutually respected rule of not harming one another. The second part is controversial. The political libertarians endorse it; other liberals reject it.
But even if one thinks, as Mill and the libertarians do, that the government’s prerogative to encroach on individual liberties is limited to enforcing the duty of doing no harm, vaccination orders can still be justified. In other cases, people support the state’s right to restrict freedoms that risk harming innocent others. Driving with worn brake pads greatly increases the risk of causing an accident and injuring or killing someone. The government can legitimately prevent people from driving a ailing car by threatening fines or other penalties.
Likewise, someone infected with COVID-19 risks spreading it to someone who could die or become seriously ill from it. While vaccination does not guarantee that one will not become infected or spread the virus to others, a three-dose vaccination course greatly reduces the likelihood of infection and thus decreases transmission rates. In addition, vaccines are inexpensive or free and have very low risk. For the same reasons as above, the government can legitimately deny people access to certain activities if they refuse to be vaccinated.
The claim “My body, my choice” fails to recognize that some people’s choices, such as For example, failure to obtain a low-risk, effective vaccine against a deadly disease poses an unjustified risk of harm to others that the government has a right to prevent. Even libertarians should agree by their own commitments. This requirement applies to all people, famous or not.
promote good
When it comes to what the state can do, celebs are nothing special. But some celebrities seem to overlook the possibility that they have a special moral responsibility given their stature. For better or worse, many people look up to celebrities as people to admire and emulate. Celebrities can influence others to get vaccinated as well.
In January, actress Evangeline Lilly attended a rally protesting vaccination requirements in the name of physical sovereignty. She claimed she was “pro-choice,” stating, “I don’t think anyone should ever be forced to inject their body against their will.”
There is good reason to believe that in certain circumstances we have a responsibility to help others and promote good. That said, morality isn’t limited to not doing harm. The philosopher Peter Singer famously argued that anyone walking past a shallow pond and finding a child about to drown in the pond has a moral obligation to wade in and pull the child out. After all, the risk for the rescuer is so small – maybe ruining a nice pair of shoes. But the benefit to the child is life itself.
Therefore, in addition to the duty not to do harm, people have some duties to do good to others. As Singer argues, people have a moral duty to do whatever they can to save life when it comes to something as big as life itself, if the cost to them is not prohibitive.
The situation with COVID-19 is similar in a morally relevant way. Encouraging others to get vaccinated, and setting an example yourself, comes at little cost, given the vaccine’s low-risk profile. But it can literally save lives.
Celebrities are uniquely positioned to do this life-saving publicity work at a low cost. The Singer Principle suggests that they are obligated to do so. Celebrities who claim “my body, my choice” are, in my view, wrong on both fronts.
The universally recognized duty to do no harm is the basis for legitimate vaccination orders. Celebrities are well placed, and therefore morally responsible, to help promote life-saving vaccines
This article has been republished under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation, an independent and not-for-profit source for news, analysis, and commentary from academic experts.
.
Comments are closed.