>The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).
You mean, selfish like everyone else is?
Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness?
I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know.
I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here).
You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?
The reason I "moralise" it is that it is but an instance of a prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons. Same applies to signalling while driving, not stealing in stores, jumping the queue, lying on your CV, etc. etc.
As in the tragedy of the commons, we have a lot to gain by cooperating, but individually have an incentive to defect/cheat. I personally think that there is no karma or god imposing justice or preventing cheating, thus it is incumbent on us to police compliance and discourage cheating.
Furthermore, there are good arguments made that we have evolved capabilities to detect cheating and a tendency to punish cheaters (even to our cost).
So, I'm both viscerally and, I think, rationally opposed to that and other forms of selfish cheating, and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose.
Is that what you're asking?
> I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know.
Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
You're throwing around terms like "selfish" and "cheating". Both have connotations of intent. However, the disconnect is that none of the anti-vacciners I've come across intend to do anything you are suggesting. While from your perspective, they are gaining while not contributing, it is neither their intent nor their observation.
So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing?
>and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose.
Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points:
1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people.
2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so.
There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques.
>Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish.
You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said:
>You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish.
Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.
They are gaining benefit. Ever wonder why non-urban menengitis outbreaks tend to happen in churches that preach some non-sense about vaccines being bad and not to groups that vaccinate?
Can you be selfish if you do not believe you are gaining something from it?
From Webster:
>concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
They do not believe in vaccine's efficacy, so they are not concerned with themselves any more than others.
>arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
Same issue here.
My question is not being answered: I gave an alternative phrasing that maintained the facts, but eliminated the word selfish. Why the need to add that label? Ultimately, it's not even whether they are selfish or not. In the debate, what useful information did that word add? If I want to increase vaccination rates, will that word help me?
I actively left the word selfish out of my post, and the wording really doesn't matter. I don't care what they believe or what they do don't deserve. All I care about is the results.
They are gaining benefit with vaccines and are causing harm without. They are safe and effective. Other people's children die when enough people choose not to vaccinate. I still don't see a grey area, no amount of mincing words adds a grey area, this should be mandatory.
Everyone is selfish but being selfish in a way that could, if enough people also followed that movement, cause an epidemic is worth labeling as such.
Selfish is not a broad term. It is an adjective used to describe a person, usually in conjunction with some action they are taking.
Your anecdotal experience with both pro- and anti-vaccination supporters has no real backing beyond ignoring the above and generalizing the term selfish to something it is not.
The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms. It would be tragic if a ton of people died because of the movement. If it goes unchecked, it could happen given enough unvaccinated people.
Maybe there is more to be said about how these vaccines are scheduled but that warrants some scientific data I don't have.
>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms.
So how is that working out?
Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective.
Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate.
As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side.
Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc).
There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes.
1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue)
2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.
Shaming doesn't seem to have a high success rate. It may have worked within a small community, but now you can pick and choose who you surround yourself with and mostly avoid daily attacks on your choices.
However, I do think it's important to try to get into the minds of how others think, to be able to come up with a strategy.
Before reading this thread, I always thought anti-vaxxers were just bad at science. But now another possibility has been shown - they understand the odds well enough, but simply prefer a very small advantage for their children over a large advantage for society.
It doesn't mean pro-vaxxers should tell them that.
I'm not trying to defend my side or persuade anyone. I have no clue where you got that idea.
I agree that shaming people isn't a good way to argue but they're still selfish by definition and morally in the wrong.
Your original conjecture wasn't even about what you are talking about now. You kept complaining about the terms used by someone else. Your previous assertions were all based on bad definitions and anecdotes.
You mean, selfish like everyone else is?
Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness?
I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know.
I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here).
You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?