Professor Richard Moon authors article about vaccine-mandate opponents

Richard Moon

Professor Richard Moon authored a news article published in Policy Options magazine about vaccine-mandate opponents that base their opposition to vaccinations on liberty, conscience and equality.

Two kinds of objection have been made against vaccination requirements, he writes, neither of which is protected by freedom of conscience.
"The first is that the state has no right to require or pressure individuals to do something they don’t want to do. But the problem with this claim is that it is not based on moral opposition to a particular practice (vaccination) but is instead a direct and general challenge to the legitimacy of state authority. This objection, to the general authority of the state, is too political and too sweeping to fall within the protection of freedom of conscience," writes Professor Moon.

"The second, and more common, objection is that the vaccinations are unsafe or unnecessary. The objectors dispute the evidence about the health risks of COVID-19 and/or the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, presumably on the basis of misinformation gathered in social media bubbles."

He goes on to argue that those who oppose vaccination cannot claim that the requirement to have one in certain circumstances breaches their freedom of conscience simply because they distrust or disagree with the science concerning vaccine safety and effectiveness or the risks of contracting COVID-19.

Read the full story on the Policy Options website.