tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2688353016892535232..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Covid-19 vaccination should not be mandatoryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55754332477082764722022-01-07T02:38:49.327-08:002022-01-07T02:38:49.327-08:00I'm suggesting this article because I agree th...I'm suggesting this article because I agree that Covid-19 vaccines shouldn't get mandated.<br /><br />https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5781:vaccines-bishop-athanasius-schneider-presents-the-catholic-position&Itemid=1360Bill McEnaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079667321417382656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14255029161206158602021-12-14T14:58:09.208-08:002021-12-14T14:58:09.208-08:00I have a concern that I really haven't seen ra...I have a concern that I really haven't seen raised. These vaccines are different because they, either through manufactured mNRA or adenovius deliveries, give your cells outside instructions to produce a pathogen (the spike protein) which the immune system then sees as an invader and builds antibodies against. This is an extra step. It is telling our cells to produce a pathogen to destroy, which is different than traditional vaccines that simplly introduce a (nuetered) pathogen directly and let the cells do their thing as designed.<br /><br />I can't help but see this is a reprogramming of cell function as God designed it. How does this play philosophically? Does it in any way challenge natural law and its tenet that every thing is created with a particular natural purpose that by its design it should act towards that? Granted, the ultimate end (immunity) is the same, but our cells are being, for lack of a better term, "faked out" to do the opposite as an intermediate step. Its a bit of an odd means to the end.<br /><br />Even if these vaccines are 100% safe and effective, they just don't sit quite right with me. On the other side, I would have no qualms with taking the more conventional Novavax vaccine should it come available in this country since that vaccine makes our cells act purely as designed. LThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12559213498495905613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24163874497011603122021-11-11T20:35:07.481-08:002021-11-11T20:35:07.481-08:00A Catholic can in good conscience... do almost any...A Catholic can in good conscience... do almost anything! For example, a Catholic can in good conscience argue that a Catholic can in good conscience do almost anything; for example, abstain from eating meat based on the false belief that eating meat is gravely wrong. Sincerity of belief, that's all that matters. And as long as it's not 'intrinsically evil' (like those lying Hebrew midwives that God blessed). (Is that the moral of the story?? I'm not so sure Bruce Charlton doesn't have a point. We see now dimly, God knows best.)David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65835567594324489832021-10-30T13:15:31.934-07:002021-10-30T13:15:31.934-07:00Everyone, the Health Department phoned today to re...Everyone, the Health Department phoned today to release me from quarantine. Covid-19 killed some people I've met, but my worst symptom was fatigue.<br /><br />My question is whether the so-called vaccine is a vaccine when it won't immunize anyone.Bill McEnaneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27445697591040153272021-10-27T15:26:54.626-07:002021-10-27T15:26:54.626-07:00Given that you think a mandate is in principle leg...Given that you think a mandate is in principle legitimate, and it's a question of prudence whether to have one in these circumstances, how do you interpret the line from the CDF, "At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary"?<br /><br />I am seeing some Catholics try to use the phrase "it must be voluntary" to circumvent the question and assert that any mandate is per se unjust. That seems too broad to me. Based on what you've said, I don't think you would agree either, but how do you interpret that statement then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89660805228800862662021-10-24T08:06:42.552-07:002021-10-24T08:06:42.552-07:00As someone who has recovered from Alpha last year ...As someone who has recovered from Alpha last year and recently recovered from Delta (both mild cases, it is distressing that I am now forced to take a vaccine for which I do not need or loose my job. I work 100% remotely. The government would rather have me loose my job and put my entire family of six at risk of having no income then to make my own prudential judgement on what medical treatment I require. The government says it is your choice but how can it really be a free consenting decision with a gun to your head.This will go down in history as a very dark day. Slippery slope to Marxism then to Communism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52862633001012890342021-10-22T06:25:00.670-07:002021-10-22T06:25:00.670-07:00P.p.s Steve Kirsch (censored from twitter can find...P.p.s Steve Kirsch (censored from twitter can find him on Gab) who was in a viral video with Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein shows that 150k people have been killed by the injections to date and millions maimed, to say nothing of medium/long term damage Rumble "TFNT11: The FDA's BIG mistake"martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15385743864852028137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10879146602863327232021-10-22T06:19:12.250-07:002021-10-22T06:19:12.250-07:00P.s.www ukcolumn dot org "stabilising-the-cod...P.s.www ukcolumn dot org "stabilising-the-code" provides mechanism for general destruction of natural immunity by these mRNA therapies. "Dr Ryan Cole, a Pathologist, in a recent presentation, stated that he is observing a 20 x uptick in endometrial cancer, and increases in other cancers post SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.<br /><br />And even more concerning: a senior consultant with decades of diagnosis and treatment at a dedicated cancer hospital described to a journalist off the record that all his vaccinated cancer patients were coming out of remission; and that cancer was jumping between organs, spreading at a speed that he has never seen before (pers. Comm.)."<br /><br />This destruction of innate immunity is the reason the 'vaccine' (in reality gain-of-function artifact made Davos bioweapon..see Whitney Webb/David Martin) efficacy is now very negative. (Israel/UK show much more disease in the twice injected) And 'fully vaccinated' means x number of boosters. Each injection does progressive damage to variegated immunity and it is said a person puts their immunity on subscription service to Pfizer in order to stay alive. (Pan-coronavirus/pan-influenza respiratory virus 'vaccines' are known to be uniquely difficult to make because of rapid mutation. But the political need from the central banker class 'vaccine'is central in proposed Great Reset to c20th totalitarianism. See interactive website with Covid-19 as central organising principle. This behavior was discovered in the founding minutes of among others the Carnegie Endowment See interview YT 'Norman Dodd on Tax Exempt Foundations' or Prof Sutton 'The Best Enemies Money Can Buy')<br /><br />Natural immunity was stricken from WHO definition of immunity by Gates-Gavi (see Fuellmich interview with WHO whistleblower Dr Astrid Stuckelberger). Definition of 'pandemic'was changed to exclude extraordinary disease and death. Rounding it out in latest iteration of WHO constitution - dictatorial power was ceded to the Sec. General (currently Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus the worst possible character to hold the position) WHO subsequently legally binds all member states. martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15385743864852028137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36069416186285901832021-10-22T05:56:43.537-07:002021-10-22T05:56:43.537-07:00This is crushing. Every single visit since 2009 ha...This is crushing. Every single visit since 2009 has been a joy for me, always enlightening always moral and intellectual brilliance (own all Ed's books)But on this most crucial topic he has fallen in an extremely dangerous way. <br /><br />Can't count how many viral videos there are explaining what these investigative RNA therapies actually are and what they're doing. How can someone as brilliant as Ed appear to not know about them? Take the latest multiple million view from acclaimed "Dr. Peter McCullough 'Therapeutic Nihilism And Untested Novel Therapies' | AAPS" (Rumble video) <br /><br />My point goes to the definition of 'vaccine' which has been unscrupulously abused by Davos 'super-class' and their philanthropic! spectre foundations.<br /><br />This issue has smothered us for nearly two years yet the most basic grounding in the issue seems completely absent. <br /><br />By some really discomforting reason it looks like I have extremely urgent background knowledge to share in here. Don't want to bombard people but perhaps an interview with Reiner Fuellmich/Vivianne Fischer 'Corona Investigative Committee for those completely in the dark. Perhaps his chat with James Delingpole? CIC (In German Corona-Ausschuss) has a dedicated video channel on odysee dot com with depositions from experts around the world. Fuellmich gave a presentation at a recent London rally that itself went viral. Can point to his interview with Whitney Webb (censored investigative journalist who has are article on Mercola as we speak 'Moderna Needs a Hail Mary') and Dr David Martin (CEO of largest underwriter of intangible assets/intellectual property in the world) as ones I've shared the most. <br /><br />Mike Whitney at unz has been across this since from the beginning and Dr Mike Yeadon, ex Pfizer VP (sold his biotech company for a billion dollars) has been all over the internet alerting people. And another "Damn You To Hell, You Will Not Destroy America" - Here Is The 'Spartacus COVID Letter' That's Gone Viral (zerohedge) is from expert insider. <br /><br />The CDF is horrendously out of touch (perhaps Lyn de Rothschild's Malthusian NGO 'Council for Inclusive Capitalism' given full access to the Holy See is responsible for the darkening. Inventor of mRNA therapy technology Dr Robert Malone 12-14 September 2021 International Covid Summit in Rome.(Lifesite News, can also watch his conversation with eminent vaccinologist Geert Vanden Bossche online) was able to explain to Cardinal Turkson what these RNA therapies are and what they're doing. <br /><br />Please this is urgent, let me know if I can help. martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15385743864852028137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5502994801354204942021-10-22T04:35:12.593-07:002021-10-22T04:35:12.593-07:00A balanced exposition of the issue. However, I wou...A balanced exposition of the issue. However, I would offer two comments for improvement. First, Dr. Feser crafts his opinion by implying that if a conscience is "mistaken", then it would be with those who might object to receiving the vaccines. This bias should be corrected to include the other side of the divide, namely, that the "mistake" in conscience could also lie with those who believe taking the vaccines is morally acceptable. <br /><br />The second point is a related one. Conscience, as we know, needs to be informed. On the vaccine topic, we are dealing with many different variables: the moral issues (e.g. cooperation with evil), the political issues (e.g. mandates), the social issues (e.g. the threat of employment termination, the bullying and intimidation tactics), and the scientific issues (e.g. how bad is covid really? are the vaccines safe? are the vaccines really the only way out of this pandemic? are we still in a pandemic?). The media and political censorship of views only contributes to what you have correctly described as the mistrust of authority. So, somebody who considers these issues as deeply and widely as possible might arrive at an informed conscience that positively prohibits one from taking the vaccines. On the other hand, if one simply imbibes the talking points of the "powers that be" regarding all these topics, then for such a person there might not be a problem.<br /><br />How conscience is informed is the key to adjudicating this issue.Williamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75794540069488605342021-10-19T09:59:47.952-07:002021-10-19T09:59:47.952-07:00Dr. Feser,
Thanks for your detailed posts on this ...Dr. Feser,<br />Thanks for your detailed posts on this topic.<br />In this article you said that a vaccine mandate can be just or unjust. However, in your "Hill to Die On" piece you wrote, "A reasonable objection would have to be based instead on the judgment that they involve a failure of prudence." That seems to me to be a contradiction, but perhaps I'm conflating the context of those remarks from two different articles. Can you explain that further? I'm curious if you believe a vaccine mandate can be immoral and under what conditions a vaccine mandate becomes immoral.<br />Many thanks!<br />Mr. Schnauferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15868111569448793478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13598559310529244272021-10-19T08:33:41.449-07:002021-10-19T08:33:41.449-07:00Pro-aborts argue the same way: no uterus? no say. ...Pro-aborts argue the same way: no uterus? no say. No (more perfect) sensus catholicus? no say. But "people with uteruses", as the CDC might put it, don't argue una voce. So even if pro-aborts' initial premise were not entirely wrong (no uterus, no say), it wouldn't settle the matter. And the same is true here. Plenty of Catholics who have a "more perfect sensus catholicus" by your criteria have argued the vaccines are licit, or have taken one (Benedict XVI). The devil's favorite argumentative tactic, which we see deployed by the woke mob constantly, is the ad hominem--a virus we should be far more concerned about contaminating the ranks of our fellow Catholics with.Foobobble the Absurdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727881978451493648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58174994994896556252021-10-18T23:37:23.546-07:002021-10-18T23:37:23.546-07:00Thanks for the free therapy session. Now, do you ...Thanks for the free therapy session. Now, do you have any actual reasoned response to the arguments I gave?Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65949601715155922542021-10-18T21:13:37.780-07:002021-10-18T21:13:37.780-07:00The stubbornness from Ed in claiming for himself t...The stubbornness from Ed in claiming for himself the status of "reasonable man" in his thoughts regarding the vaccine issue would be laughable if it weren't possibly demonic.<br /><br />Ed has no business proclaiming on moral matters, and it's probable he knows it deep down - perhaps he knew it once, but forgot it - but he continues.<br /><br />There are different degrees of sensus catholicus, and only those with the strongest occupy the station to opine on moral matters.<br /><br />The sensus catholicus of a believer is dependent on both things within and without the believer's control. For example, a believer may have been brought up in certain circumstances which altogether precluded any sensus catholicus - say, his parents were atheists - but he later found the faith. In this case, while his faith is good, the believer, if he truly believes from his heart and not from some warped motives such as treating religion as a game arena in which to beat other interlocutors, would be the first to tell you he has no right to opine on moral matters; leave it to those with a more perfect sensus catholicus.<br /><br />Regarding those things within one's control, the sensus catholicus is cultivated in the usual way - daily prayer, frequent meditation, daily Mass, daily reading on the lives of the saints, affiliating only with others who live the same, etc. At the forefront of such a person's mind in life would be the Four Last Things, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.<br /><br />What is Ed's case? He was raised in the faith, then lost it completely. This tells you everything you need to know.<br /><br />A man with the highest kind of sensus catholicus, required for making moral judgments with any semblance of authority, does not lose the faith after being graced by God with being raised in it. This is simply not possible.<br /><br />Ed wears his lapsed atheism as a badge of honor - something to earn him points with believers - "have you heard of this guy? he was an atheist so he understands all their arguments really well, great guy to read". In reality, his former atheism, ESPECIALLY given his having been raised in the faith, is actually a massive red flag.<br /><br />Ed is fine to write about things which have little or no moral implication that tickle readers' eyes - interesting pieces about theological writings on angels, for instance. But as regards these moral issues, his sensus catholicus is nowhere near adequate to warrant his opinion being given, or listened to.<br /><br />St. Paul didn't have the faith and then lose it before his conversion. If there are any other "exceptions", they're just that, and as Chesterton says, exceptions merely prove the rule. Further it'd be flirting with blasphemy for Ed to call himself one of these extraordinary exceptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17415895666219845672021-10-18T07:50:44.710-07:002021-10-18T07:50:44.710-07:00 Mandates in my opinion border Communism, period! Mandates in my opinion border Communism, period!Barhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16739337973679060741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38605204295898240712021-10-17T02:01:39.131-07:002021-10-17T02:01:39.131-07:00"Segregation was intrinsically wrong. Taking ..."Segregation was intrinsically wrong. Taking the vaccine is not, and neither is a mandate."<br /><br />If averting a relatively unlikely harmful outcome would invariably result in a definite and guaranteed harm in its stead, then such measure isn't just wrong, it's also evil. People who have been told to either 'jab up' or get out from their workplace, what are they supposed to do now? Starve? Die on the street? What sense is there to fire hundreds of thousands of people in an economy already wracked by unemployment and fiscal uncertainty, therefore relegating them to the dismal fate of poverty, homelessness, suicide, stress and depression, all of which taken together is guaranteed to have definite negative consequences to their personal health far in excess of this quite frankly overblown "pandemic"? When, in order to prevent a few serious complications of Covid, a vastly greater amount of people's lives are destroyed, what kind of medical calculus can possibly justify such a thing that's not downright sinister? <br /><br />Any sort of coercion, physical or mental, used to compel a law abiding person who has not been charged with any crime, to do something against their will (particularly a medical procedure) is forbidden not only by the constitution of the United States but by internationally upheld human rights laws such as the Nuremberg Code. <br /><br />I concur that there are times when those in authority are eligible to employ certain coercive measures to ensure public safety, such as during a critical emergency or a national disaster. In this case, the state must prove before a constitutional court of law that several things hold true beyond a margin of a doubt: the clear and present imminence of the danger at hand (which Covid isn't close to being), as well as the reasonableness of the curtailment of civil liberties needed to avert it. In this case Congress or the ruling authority of a state needs to pass a specific set of laws which abrogate Constitutionally mandated liberties and protections in light of this emergency. This has not been done in any country that at least publicly professes to obey the rule of law as the foundation of the legitimacy of the state.<br /><br />None of these mask, social distancing and vaccine mandates constitute, in a legally defined sense, as laws to be such. Of course just because something is a law doesn't render it automatically just. However in this case, these mandates can't be made into law for a very good reason - none of them have even a remotest chance of passing in a constitutional court, unless such a court is so thoroughly corrupt and politicized so as to be nothing more than an ideological extension of the plenary powers of the state. Until such a blessed time finally arrives at last, these are merely "emergency decrees" of a dubious legal nature, which any enterprise or individual can contest in court if they decide to do so. I repeat, nobody is under any legal obligation to comply with these mandates, since none of them are lawful to begin with. In issuing and enforcing these so called public health measures, the governments are trampling on the very premise of the legal system. Important public decisions are not made by elected representatives acting on behalf of the law, but de facto by medical administrators and self storied “experts” with hands deep in the pockets of the pharma industry. A state that permits this to go on, is no longer a legitimate government, but a criminal organization and its people are no longer citizens, but occupied civilians held in bondage. And if the legal officials tasked with overseeing the supreme courts of the nation are too chickenshit to challenge the blatant illegality of these mandates, then the precedent for such tyranny the likes of which mankind has never seen before is all but assured. Michaelhttp://en.kalitribune.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31884278549589819952021-10-16T20:37:21.817-07:002021-10-16T20:37:21.817-07:00Does the argument from conscription really work he...Does the argument from conscription really work here, even in principle? It seems like classical moral reasoning would only approve of the conscription of adult men, and not so much from expediency (men more effective in combat, etc.), but as a matter of principle. Sending women and children into battle would defeat the purpose of going to battle in the first place -- strictly speaking, it would be a perversion.<br /><br />So it's not clear that the traditional approval of conscription shows that the state may legitimately compel anyone whatever (or in this case, absolutely everyone) to risk his life for the common good.Ben D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36678270887801187742021-10-15T07:12:47.504-07:002021-10-15T07:12:47.504-07:00Dr. Feser,
About a month ago I was preparing an a...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />About a month ago I was preparing an argument of my own on this topic for a friend of mine, which is in essence the same argument you present in this post. Thank you, thank you, thank you for the unbidden sanity/accuracy check.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14313217028906922715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70726524131236635242021-10-14T22:35:11.179-07:002021-10-14T22:35:11.179-07:00I will provide just a small part of an answer. I ...I will provide just a small part of an answer. I believe that the relation to be considered is: the good effects to be anticipated <i>from this act</i> compared to the bad effects to be anticipated <i>from this act</i>. One of the bad effects to be anticipated from this act is (precisely because it is material <i>cooperation</i> with some other (primary) evil act), an <i>apparent</i> support or at least acceptance of that other evil act. One of the <i>mitigating</i> aspects of that apparent support or acceptance is that your own act is <i>remote</i> from the primary, evil act, and thus your act is a VERY MINOR apparent support for it. Another mitigating factor (can be) if you explicitly tell the nurse, doctor, pharmacist "I want a vaccine that didn't use cell lines from an aborted baby, please," and when they tell you there is none, register your explicit complaint: "<br />well, there SHOULD be one, I would be willing to pay good money for that." Thus, the <i>apparent</i> support for the other (primary) evil act is concretely short-circuited by your <i>more direct and more emphatic</i> rejection of it. Hence, in ordinary vaccine cases, it is not extraordinarily difficult to satisfy a requirement that the goods to be anticipated (from taking the vaccine) exceed the bad effects to be anticipated from taking it. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49018933974210777102021-10-14T16:04:49.896-07:002021-10-14T16:04:49.896-07:00What do we make of the Pope mandating that all Vat...What do we make of the Pope mandating that all Vatican employees either be vaccinated or tested, otherwise they will be deemed absent and not be paid?<br /><br />https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/574338-vatican-ordering-all-employees-to-be-vaccinated-or<br /><br />Sure, if you can simply get tested, that's not forcing a vaccine, but who needs to pay for that test? If its the employee, then being unvaccinated is sort of like a tax. Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32482499130045394932021-10-14T10:55:57.741-07:002021-10-14T10:55:57.741-07:00Dr. Feser thank you for this post, it has helped m...Dr. Feser thank you for this post, it has helped me better digest the issue as a federal employee. I am not against the vaccine and maintain the Church's moral licitness concerning their. However, the mandates do bring up an interesting and difficult to discern scenario.<br /><br />Your statement about just war time conscription as an analogy, and possibly a framework, for analyzing how to approach the vaccine mandate is helpful. In our context, there seems to be two primary entities that are considered: (1) the actions of a reasonably just state, (2) the liberties of a citizen of a reasonably just state. <br />The mandate does present an occasion where the state is seemingly offending a citizen’s liberties — the force of this offense can be seen by how little of an existential threat the virus actually presents.<br /><br />Can you clarify a point which I believe your post implies and your quote from Gaudium et Spes as well: Should the the default stance of a citizen towards the state be one deference to the state’s rules, laws, and regulations in the event that it conflicts with citizens liberties and when the material of the ruling is not formally a sin but only one of remote cooperation? If there is a degree in the warrant of the mandate and degree in the remoteness of the sin, does the state always win out though deference? Thanks! :-)Scott O.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07461106555484586204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7731586690786532052021-10-14T09:21:20.212-07:002021-10-14T09:21:20.212-07:00Nail meet head.
The TWO extremes in this argument,...Nail meet head.<br />The TWO extremes in this argument, in this pandemic, are the reason this is going on as long as it is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00711563300399886393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41454021624941350942021-10-13T22:59:15.620-07:002021-10-13T22:59:15.620-07:00Calm down and learn to read. Not only did I not e...Calm down and learn to read. Not only did I not encourage compliance, I explicitly criticized the mandate and said that those who put themselves at risk to work to reverse it deserve respect.<br /><br />At the same time, it is not wrong to take the vaccine, so that those who choose to do so are not sinning, and not betraying the Catholic faith. Hence it is wrong to pretend that refusal to take the vaccine is some hill that Catholics are obligated to die on. <br /><br />And your analogy is ridiculous. Segregation was intrinsically wrong. Taking the vaccine is not, and neither is a mandate (even if it is a bad idea and exemptions for conscience should be allowed).<br /><br />Thanks, however, by illustrating through your response the aptness of the "hothead" label.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89283314208880009802021-10-13T22:40:41.317-07:002021-10-13T22:40:41.317-07:00Then you should RESIST those who try to force it o...Then you should RESIST those who try to force it on people, instead of complying and encouraging compliance.<br /><br />You would have made a great civil rights leader. "Black people shouldn't be forced to sit in the back of the bus -- but on the other hand there's nothing morally wrong with sitting in the back. I sit there myself and encourage other black people to do the same. People who refuse to do so and treat it like a moral issue are dangerous hotheads."Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92196031446832569732021-10-13T22:06:54.765-07:002021-10-13T22:06:54.765-07:00Dr. Feser, could you expand on your definition fro...Dr. Feser, could you expand on your definition from the original article on what constitutes a proportional reason to cooperate with evil (the fetal cell testing) in this way? Does everyone have a good enough reason to get the vaccine or would you say people who are at low risk and not caring for high risk people don’t have a good reason to cooperate with the evil involved in testing the vaccine? What about kids? Just wanted to see your opinion since no one seems to have commented on what constitutes a proportional reason in this context.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com