Mandates protect us all
Pitching freedom against vaccines a false dichotomy
As the pandemic continues its course despite the availability of vaccines, many continue to see mandates by employers or universities as morally objectionable. But are they? And if so, why?
Perhaps the most common objection to mandates is that they are wrong because they violate our liberty. But pitching freedom against mandates may be overly simplistic and a false dichotomy.
Start with three background facts. First, we are living through a pandemic that has killed at least 5.3 million people worldwide, but which may be responsible for upward of 17.3 million excess deaths, according to the latest estimate by The Economist.
Second, the scientific data suggest that COVID -19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Third, in the United States, voluntary vaccination has not been sufficient to reach herd immunity.
If one of these conditions didn’t apply, the warrant for a vaccine mandate would likely not get off the ground. But these are the conditions in which we now find ourselves.
So ask: Under these conditions, does a vaccine mandate really violate a right to liberty? The fact that you have a right to liberty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. For instance, your freedom does not mean you can run naked into a grocery store, that you can scream “Fire!” in a crowded public place, or that you can kill others for fun. Why not? Because your freedom is no more valuable than that of others. So your right to freedom couldn’t warrant your injuring or unnecessarily risking injury to other people.
An argument for a vaccine mandate has the same form: Just as we have rules prohibiting killing or recklessly injuring others, a vaccine mandate is a rule to protect the freedom of all. And so, a blanket appeal to freedom cannot be enough to defeat a vaccine mandate, just like a blanket appeal to freedom cannot be enough to warrant screaming “Fire” in a crowded place or walking naked into a store.
One may still object that a mandate is paternalistic and is, for that reason, incompatible with liberty. However, while in general anti-paternalism is compelling, it misses the point here. The point of a mandate is not to enforce on you a view of what’s good for you, but rather to protect the freedom of all.
Take universities, for example. A vaccine mandate makes it possible for all of us — students, faculty and staff — to return to in-person education. Without it, universities would either be exceedingly and unnecessarily risky, or would have to close down. A mandate made it possible for us to be free to return to in-person education, for cafeterias and dorms to reopen, for classrooms to be filled with people.
What’s true of universities is also true of society at large. In contexts where voluntary vaccination is insufficient to reach herd immunity, a mandate can make it possible for restaurants and small business to reopen in relative safety, or for health care workers to not be stretched to the limit, forcing them to make impossible choices with limited beds.
There is a further argument in support of mandates, one that appeals to what philosophers H.L.A. Hart (1955) and John Rawls (1964) once called the “principle of fair play.”
The basic idea: Everyone who participates in a reasonably just, cooperative practice has an obligation to bear a fair share of the burdens of the practice. A standard example: Three of us need to cross a river by rowing on a boat. We agree to row together but once on the boat, my laziness kicks in and I just refuse to row. My action is wrong because it is unfair: I draw the benefits of the cooperative practice (getting to the other bank) without doing my fair share (rowing). I’m a free rider.
The same argument can be made in the context of a COVID -19 vaccine mandate. Ask: Do people who refuse to accept the vaccine also accept the benefits of others doing their share in bearing the burdens of a pandemic? If today overall infections are relatively low, schools can open, and restaurants, bars and cinemas can reopen to entertain and employ us, that’s only thanks to the burdens others have taken on by getting the vaccine. The principle of fair play can support some vaccine mandates: ensuring everyone bears equitably the burdens of keeping society safe and the economy open.
None of this shows that there are no valid exceptions to a mandate — for religious or health reasons. And there may yet be other, deeper arguments to show why mandates in our circumstances are morally objectionable. But a blanket appeal to liberty is not enough. At the very least, the debate must become considerably more nuanced than the mere opposition between mandates and liberty, since, it seems to me, a through ongoing commitment to the liberty of all supports some vaccine mandates.
The fact that you have a right to liberty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. Why not? Because your freedom is no more valuable than that of others. So your right to freedom couldn’t warrant your injuring or unnecessarily risking injury to others.