Toleration of those who don\u2019t\nconform is simple. Just as someone cannot force another into joining a religion\nthey do not practice, someone can also not be forced into something that would\nonly affect that individual privately. Vaccinations are proven to be a\nbeneficial ward of potentially deadly diseases, but it\u2019s not something that can\nbe forced onto someone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Commonwealth is a structure\nbuilt so that individuals may focus on preserving and advancing their own Civil\nInterests, such as life, liberty, health, and property. Becoming vaccinated\nsurely helps preserve the civil interest of health for an individual, but it is\nstill up to that individual to choose whether or not they want to preserve that\ncivil interest in that way. The Commonwealth is structured for providing an\nenvironment where people can have access to ways of advancing their own health.\nHowever, just because that easier access is provided doesn\u2019t mean that it has\nto be accepted. An individual is allowed to refuse something, even though it\nmight benefit them, based on that individual\u2019s own beliefs. This refusal should\nbe tolerated to the extent in which the consequences of that action only affect\nthat individual, as the refusal at that point won\u2019t be affecting the civil\ninterests or rights of anyone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vaccinations, however, don\u2019t just benefit the individual, but prevent diseases from being spread that could possibly affect the liberties of others. A disease that someone carries because they are unvaccinated can place others in harm\u2019s way, even take away their lives. Because of this, a private matter such as choosing not to be vaccinated can start to have some consequences in the public sphere. I pose it is up to the structure of the Commonwealth to create a way to tolerate such individuals, or rather, prevent their private matters from becoming public issues, for both the sakes of those who choose to remain unvaccinated as well as those who might be affected by them. The easiest way to do this is to have being vaccinated as a requirement for participation in and access to the services of the Commonwealth, such as schools, workplaces, and recreational facilities, since something as simple as exposure to an unvaccinated person can create a public issue. Complications also arise when trying to restrict access to certain places that cannot easily be restricted, such as a public park. At that point, the Commonwealth could restructure to protect those who choose to go unvaccinated, but there is still responsibility that lies with that individual too. Say that individual chooses to ignore these restrictions placed by the Commonwealth and creates a public issue that affects the rights of someone else. Then that individual is liable to face the consequences for affecting those rights, whether they be from that others or from society itself. Really, this is a dangerous and cautious life to lead, but it is still their prerogative to do so. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Toleration of those who don\u2019t conform is simple. Just as someone cannot force another into joining a religion they do not practice, someone can also not be forced into something that would only affect that individual privately. Vaccinations are proven … Continue reading