My Chin, Your Fist

Freedom in a Liberal Society

According to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., vaccination is a personal choice. The question, however, is what one might mean by the term “personal choice.”

Let’s begin by recalling the adage, “There’s no ‘I’ in ‘team’” (there is a “me,” though!) That suggests that the greater good of the whole supersedes the good of any individual on the team. Our liberal-democratic society is certainly not a team in that sense, though communitarian critics from the left and post-liberal critics from the right often suggest that it should be, albeit with very different guiding values.

On the other hand, our liberal-democratic society is more than just a random collection of unconnected individuals, the view justifying the former military draft’s premise that individuals have a duty, at risk to life and limb, to help defend that society.

Thus, our obligations to others do not swallow up our individuality, and our individuality does not dissolve our obligations to others. This abstract topic and its somewhat unsatisfying in-between position come into play more concretely when we consider the question of vaccinations.

I’m sure that all of us can recall circumstances in which we disapprove of someone’s action but have said something like, “Well, as long as she’s not hurting anyone . . . .” This is a version of what came to be called the harm principle, stated most eloquently by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay, On Liberty. I beg your indulgence as I cite his key passage at length:

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

There is an enormous literature on this idea, both supportive and critical; do an online search if you’re curious. It’s often summarized as the idea that your right to extend your fist ends where my chin begins. Since you have no right to punch me, government does not deprive you of any right when it prohibits you from doing so. Similarly, given Mill’s statement that “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others,” government’s enforcement of traffic regulations like speed limits should not be controversial. You may be compelled not to speed.

The central question, of course, is, what counts as harm that concerns others? If someone hits you on the head with a baseball bat, that is obviously harm. What if someone prevents you from going to school? Is that harm? Suppose someone does not award you first place in a contest or hire you for a job—is that harm?

We deny our toddlers the right to decide what time to go to bed, just as we don’t let them eat ice cream and cake as their dinner. The harm principle can handle such cases insofar as we’re dealing with children rather than adults. Suppose, though, the government forces you to subscribe to certain religious tenets because otherwise you’d go to hell. Mill would oppose such an action because it cannot coerce you for your own good.

However, does requiring vaccinations violate Mill’s argument that regarding conduct “which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute”? This view seems to underlie the claim that getting vaccinated is a personal choice. The key phrase is “merely concerns himself.” Unless you live alone on a desert island, having a contagious disease strikes me as something that does not concern only yourself. There’s more than your own good at stake here.

The harm principle raises all sorts of difficult issues; applying it is often a matter of degree rather than black and white. Nevertheless, I would accept that you have every right in the world to get Covid, measles, etc. or to let your children do so (though this is a much trickier issue due to considerations of child abuse or neglect).

However, I maintain that you do NOT have a right to give it to me or my family. Mandating vaccinations protects us from clear harms potentially caused by others. It's the price of living in society.

I think Mill would agree.

Please check out other columns at the Iowa Writers Collaborative and consider a paid subscription to keep community-based local journalism and commentary alive as we keep you informed. Paid subscribers are invited to the Office Lounge, a live Zoom call on the last Friday of the month at noon Central time.