Utilitarianism v. Kantian Deontology
Scientific studies show that many COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. Both Moderna and Pfizer now have full FDA approval as well. However, some people still do not want to get vaccinated. Many employers, however, are attempting to make these vaccines mandatory.
Even if such mandates turn out to be legal (these are clearly being debated in the courts right now and laws may vary from state to state as well as within certain types of employment) we can always ask whether or not such a mandate would be morally acceptable (i.e., that mandates are not immoral) or even, perhaps, morally required (i.e., it would be immoral not to mandate these vaccines.)
(1) According to Act Utilitarianism, would it be morally acceptable to mandate a COVID-19 vaccines even if a person wishes to refuse it? (In other words, apply the Principle of Utility to this case to determine if a vaccine mandate would be morally acceptable or required.)
(2) According to Kantian Deontology, would it be morally accpetable to mandate a COVID-19 vaccines even if a person wishes to refuse it? (In other words, apply the Categorical Imperative to this case to determine if a vaccine mandate would be morally acceptbale or required.)
*Hint* Remember, Act Utilitarianism requires a person to choose the action that is optimific whereas Kantian Deontology requires a person to respect autonomy.
(3) Which moral theory do you think provides a better answer? Why?
(4) Reply to 1 classmate.
Do you agree or disagree with your classmate’s response to #3? Why or why not?
Please be respectful of your classmates’ opinions.
Try to respond to a classmate who has little to no responses. Avoid replying to classmates who already have several responses.
Your answers should be at least 4-5 sentences per question.
*Also, be sure to write your own, original answer (i.e., do not copy another student’s work or use any sources). You are expected to read all of your classmates posts.