Hacker News Reader

Comment by tc | Hacker News Reader

If Paul Offit just creates vaccines and publishes factual research, then all the anger directed at him seems completely absurd. But if he or RotaTeq advocates or lobbies for mandatory vaccinations, then it is at least fair to criticize him as a moral agent.

People often throw up absurd objections to factual research because they have a moral stake in the debate but limited evidence (or knowledge, time, or interest) to engage on a utilitarian front. Unfortunately, it seems to be more politically successful to fight via convolution of facts than to engage in the moral issue directly.

The public seems to undervalue legitimate moral arguments, so competing interests instead engage in a proxy war of claims about benefits and harms.

View on HN

Please further explain your moral agent statement. I can see mandatory vaccines on the one hand as a moral position (you must save your kid my way) and on the other as a socially responsible position (not vaccinating your kid provides disease vectors to mine.. not all vaccines provide 100% immunity so more vaccines is better protection for all). Im interested in hearing more on both sides of this.

Sure.

If you were to publish neutral research showing that, were the US were to draft all men 18-35, then the US armed forces would grow by X% and we could fight Y major wars at once while occupying Z square miles of foreign territory, then it would seem mostly senseless to direct anger or criticism at you if your claims were factually sensible.

If on the other hand, though, you were to promote the idea that the draft was needed, that it would produce a socially useful outcome, and that people who oppose your view are being irrational and selfish, then you've entered into a moral debate.

And further, if you own a large defense contracting firm, then your claims and your moral position about the necessity of forcing people to join the military would be subjected to additional, admittedly ad hominem, scrutiny.

OK, first, I am not convinced that socially responsible is strictly a moral position. Disease vector analysis is just an analysis on a directed graph. In this case there is a strong mathematical model, with scientific evidence, that not vaccinating children can harm other children. Because of this I am questioning your analogy, since in the case of the draft there is not a non-opinion social component.

Instead I analogize with drunk driving -- significantly fewere drunk drivers equates to significantly fewer 3rd party injuries and deaths as a result of drunk drivers. Similarly in the vaccination case, there are 3rd parties who stand to suffer from the actions of those who do not receive vaccines.

Edit: I forgot to put my second point, which is:

I agree with your analogy in that those who stand to benefit should be closely scrutinized when advocating a position.

I see your point, but I am reminded of multiple research where if you make it an option people are less likely to follow through. (sorry too lazy to find and link source)

I think it applies here, but there was a study in which they made something default. Like by default they enrolled you into some fitness program, but you have the option of not doing it. The study found that more people actually went through with the program instead of trying to opt out. Compare to when the program was optional and people had to sign up to do the fitness program.

By stating that vaccinations are mandatory, his intentions might simply be trying to get as much people as possible to take the preventive care. Again, I am just trying to state one possible reason.

What if he was not attached to any company or any entity, but just merely a doctor who advocated the vaccination as mandatory? Would things be different?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com