Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up /their/ 
> children between 5 and 18-years-old. 

I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
a good thing or a bad thing.

I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
the polio vaccination program.)

One could argue that the smallpox vaccination program was good, but could
have been handled better (ie. respecting more people's choice). The problem
with that is that it would have taken much longer to eradicate smallpox
(which could well still exist today if it had been done like that), and
countless people would have subsequently died because of it.

Therefore, as ugly as it sounds, the "handling things better" (from a
western moral perspective) would have caused innocent people to die.

*That* is a notional dissonance, and one that I personally do not accept.
I put people's lives ahead of moral sensibilities. If I had to choose,
I would choose the former over the latter, especially in this case,
where no negative consequences were involved. (If there were any negative
consequences to the smallpox vaccination program, they were minor and
short-lasting.)

I do not accept the notion that a harmless vaccination program should be
deterred in order to appease our moral sensibilities, at the cost of
countless lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message