A point about misinformation and freedom



In her 1999 book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, moral philosopher Sissela Bok strenuously argued that when people hold false beliefs and they act on them, they are deprived of the freedom to decide and act on the basis of actual knowledge. Citing lies by politicians to the public, she argued that deceit and false beliefs can destroy a democracy. Deceit and false beliefs take from society its freedom to choose based on true reality. 

False beliefs can come from intentional deceit or propaganda or from honest mistakes. Regardless of the source, some false beliefs are occasionally lethal. One important issue now is whether to get vaccinated or not. Some people who decide to not get vaccinated do so on the basis of false information about the vaccine. Sometimes one of them gets infected and passes the virus to another(s). Occasionally they die from the infection. Some or most of unvaccinated people claim they reject the vaccine as a matter of personal freedom. The issue of the effect of deceit on their choices apparently rarely or never seriously crosses their minds. 

In an interview with the Washington Post, medical doctor Lena Wen commented on the phenomenon of false beliefs driving decisions about COVID vaccines and the consequences for personal freedom:
I think how we got here is complicated, right? I agree with the surgeon general in issuing the advisory about misinformation and disinformation — certainly that plays a big role here. There are individuals out there who are knowingly spreading misinformation. There are others who are clicking and then, unfortunately, sharing misinformation that’s leading to question that and the efficacy of vaccines. That misinformation is taking away people’s freedom to make decisions for themselves and their families.
Wen maybe misspoke a bit there. Belief in misinformation takes away people’s freedom to make better informed decisions or ones based on less false beliefs. 

As far as I know, spreading false information about COVID vaccines is legal protected free speech. There are no legal repercussions to people who do that, intentionally or not. Since it's apparently not illegal, what about morality? Do moral concerns even apply, including possible harm to one's self and others? Does it matter if the false information is known to be false or if it is grounded in an honest mistake(s)?




By Germaine: The happy miscreant

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more