Public Good Vs. Individual Freedom: Article Analysis

In Gerson’s article, “The Public Good vs. Individual Freedom”, he expresses his strong beliefs on the controversial topic of measles vaccinations and his stand on positive freedom. Gerson explains the importance of vaccinations while identifying the seriousness of the disease and the risks it brings when parents refuse to get their children vaccinated. He argues against allowing parents the individual freedom to decide whether or not to get their child vaccinated. To summarize, Gerson’s article asserts that allowing parents the freedom to make this choice, with no interference, is not benefiting the rest of society because their individual choices may be potentially causing adverse exposure to the general population (Gerson 2015). Throughout the article, Gerson brings forth the concept of ‘positive freedom’, when discussing his beliefs on the measles vaccinations. Positive freedom can be defined as “freedom that creates opportunities for us that can benefit the rest of society” (Honderich, 2005). In this situation, Gerson argues that positive freedom should be the best way to protect the general public, rather than allowing parents to make blithe choices. This is a time when people need to have their freedoms questioned and guided in order to determine what is best for society as a whole. On the other hand, negative freedom involves no interference with freedom (Honderich, 2015); which Gerson is arguing could ultimately result in negative health consequences upon innocent or, …show more content…
As religion is such a serious factor for so many people, it tends to put this segment of the population at a greater risk and removes some aspect of positive freedoms to protect not only themselves but society as a whole. For safety purposes, should the government be able to interfere with