Freedom has always been an intriguing dilemma since the beginning of human civilisation. In order to delve into the issue correctly, we have to define what freedom means. According to Isaiah Berlin, there are two forms of freedom: Positive freedom and Negative freedom. Simply put, positive freedom is about the opportunity or freedom to do something. This form of freedom is often referred to as coercion, or the interference of human beings. Negative freedom is defined as the freedom from things. More notably, it is the freedom in which a person can act unobstructed by others(1). There are many different cases that display these freedoms and test the rights to choice of the people. Gerson’s article “The Public Good vs. Individual Freedom” is
…show more content…
He believes that parents should vaccinate their children “for a clearly defined social good”. He knows that this is an infringement on people's freedom by saying, “This requires burdening the freedom of parents in a variety of ways — not putting them in jail if they refuse to vaccinate, but denying them some public good (like public education) and subjecting them to stigma (which they generally deserve).” Although the choice to get a vaccination is currently a negative freedom, Gerson believes that it should be a positive freedom. He notes that measles is a highly contagious virus and if you do not have the vaccination, you are harming the general public. This directly relates to John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which states, “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. This can be interpreted as your liberty, or freedom, is valid until it harms someone else. This is a general statement that could be applied to this case. Since not getting vaccinated not only harms you, but could potentially harm others by transmission of germs and or other related means, constitutes the problem of infringing on someone else's freedom. He goes on to explain that parents that do not vaccinate their children are “free riders” and depend on all the other children receiving the vaccine. Gerson see’s this as a problem because for now it works in the “free riders” favour, until too many people …show more content…
People should have the choice to administer a foreign substance into their bodies because it is a negative freedom. This ties back to Mill’s Harm Principle. Gerson teases this view of positive freedom by asking, “Government has taken a position against the use of tobacco. What of substances such as sugar, salt and saturated fat?” People choose to eat the foods with unsaturated fat, salt, and sugar. Like smoking tobacco, too much is unhealthy, but it is a negative freedom that people can exercise. As long as the activity does not harm anyone elses liberties, then you have the freedom to do what you want. The main question that remains is where do we draw the line when it comes to the freedom of choice? A mother of two children, named Liv Gray, is a parent that does not believe in vaccinations. Liz supports her choice by stating, “We know of kids who have had bad reactions to the injections which have resulted in long-term issues. Maybe it was coincidence but we didn't want to take the chance”. Liz is an example of a “free-rider” that is apart of the uprising in negative views that Gerson
He believes that parents should vaccinate their children “for a clearly defined social good”. He knows that this is an infringement on people's freedom by saying, “This requires burdening the freedom of parents in a variety of ways — not putting them in jail if they refuse to vaccinate, but denying them some public good (like public education) and subjecting them to stigma (which they generally deserve).” Although the choice to get a vaccination is currently a negative freedom, Gerson believes that it should be a positive freedom. He notes that measles is a highly contagious virus and if you do not have the vaccination, you are harming the general public. This directly relates to John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, which states, “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. This can be interpreted as your liberty, or freedom, is valid until it harms someone else. This is a general statement that could be applied to this case. Since not getting vaccinated not only harms you, but could potentially harm others by transmission of germs and or other related means, constitutes the problem of infringing on someone else's freedom. He goes on to explain that parents that do not vaccinate their children are “free riders” and depend on all the other children receiving the vaccine. Gerson see’s this as a problem because for now it works in the “free riders” favour, until too many people …show more content…
People should have the choice to administer a foreign substance into their bodies because it is a negative freedom. This ties back to Mill’s Harm Principle. Gerson teases this view of positive freedom by asking, “Government has taken a position against the use of tobacco. What of substances such as sugar, salt and saturated fat?” People choose to eat the foods with unsaturated fat, salt, and sugar. Like smoking tobacco, too much is unhealthy, but it is a negative freedom that people can exercise. As long as the activity does not harm anyone elses liberties, then you have the freedom to do what you want. The main question that remains is where do we draw the line when it comes to the freedom of choice? A mother of two children, named Liv Gray, is a parent that does not believe in vaccinations. Liz supports her choice by stating, “We know of kids who have had bad reactions to the injections which have resulted in long-term issues. Maybe it was coincidence but we didn't want to take the chance”. Liz is an example of a “free-rider” that is apart of the uprising in negative views that Gerson