Anti-vaccination arguments and the moral questions

Surprising that this is generating outrage from anti-vaxxers?
“Preaching to the unconverted: immunisation risks and public health” by S. S. Holden (if you’re from Australia you are allowed to chuckle as his name is a type of car).

No, not really surprising that they’re outraged.

I quite liked the article, it gets to the heart of the situation (although I feel it validates the position of anti-vaxxers too much).

In essence, Anti-vaxxers lose on science. However, they have a valid moral question: “Should we be forced to vaccinate?”.

They think that the answer is “no” (even if they weren’t misinformed about the science).

However, my morality clashes with theirs. My morality leads me to the position that I should take a risk for the greater good and I should hope that others would do the same.

Furthermore, that risk isn’t just for the greater good, that risk is for individual benefit too.

Each individual person benefits from their vaccination more than society, EVEN SO, their decision not to vaccinate puts the rest of society at risk without their opt in.

Let’s try this scenario with murder: I could have the freedom to murder you but that would take away your freedom not to be murdered.

The other problem with vaccinations is that parents are making the decisions for their children in most cases.