Question

Suppose there were a law forcing people to get vaccinated against various infectious diseases. People would be rounded up and given vaccines whether they want them or not. The goal would be 100% compliance. What is the utilitarian case FOR such a law? What is the utilitarian argument AGAINST it? What is the deontological case FOR such a law? What is the deontological argument AGAINST it?

I need help with the arguments because I'm having trouble understanding them and how the apply to this scenario. Thanks for your help

Answer 1

Utilitarian Ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it increases utility or benefit or happiness to maximum number of people and reduces any harm. Vaccinating everyone would help everyone remain healthy besides it would also prevent the spread of the diseases further. This would keep everyone happy, so it’s right. It would be wrong because most of the people would be against forced vaccination and taking vaccination would only harm them physically and psychologically thus it wouldn’t be ethical to forcefully vaccinate people.

Deontological or duty ethics suggests that one should complete one’s duty without worrying about the consequences of that action. According to this theory, vaccination is the duty of the government as it’s the government’s responsibility to keep all its citizens and thus the country free from any disease. On the other hand it’s wrong because a government cannot force it’s citizens to undergo certain things that the citizens do not like because it’s the government’s duty to respect individual rights.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.