Critically Thinking about the "Greater Good" Argument — Part 2

Are COVID-19 Injection Mandates Consistent with American Democratic Principles? 

John Droz jr. January 5, 2023 @ Critical Thinking

The Greater Good (GG) argument is at the core of policies that mandate COVID-19 injections. GG three major parts: 1) Religion, 2) Freedom, and 3) Science.

It’s too much to cover all these in one commentary, so there are three separate pieces. (See below for links to the other two.) Let’s briefly discuss the second.

Like a lot of Left-wing ideology, GG is an anti-American political agenda presented in a superficially appealing package. Think Trojan Horse.

We need to be clear what the GG belief really says. In a nutshell it is: the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the community.

Implicit in this argument is an acknowledgement that forcing citizens to get a COVID-19 injection is NOT about a net benefit derived by the injection recipient, but rather it is about a purported net societal benefit. This is a direct attack on personal rights. The underlying premise of this GG policy is that:

“We are not concerned about the adverse effects on you, the citizen, including death. We are only concerned about the net societal impact.”

In other words, government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. that ascribe to GG are saying: if the general society may possibly benefit, the individual can be forced to give up their free will choice, their financial well being, their health, and even their life.

But wait! America was founded on protecting the rights of individuals. Carefully read the Declaration of Independence, which (among other wonderful things) says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet to many American citizens, being subjected to an unscientific (and immoral) vaccine is diametrically opposed to their unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What happened to those rights?

A hint as to how the extraction of those rights is “justified” is in linguistics. The idea is that the Left is trying to create a new subcategory of American Citizens: radical nitwits. Once certain people have been relegated to that low level caste construct, then it’s easier for the Left to then claim that they no longer are “real” American citizens, so they no longer deserve the inalienable rights of real citizens.

How is this done? One way is that those who are objecting to a mandated COVID-19 injection are derisively labelled as “anti-vaxxers.” This is clearly a sham as: a) there is no true “vaccine” involved, and b) most objectors are only resisting the COVID-19 injection (i.e., they are not against shingles vaccines, etc.).

This is a classic guilt by association tactic, as in trying to undermine the credence of those who have scientific arguments against climate change, by calling them “deniers” or “flat-earthers.”

When this linguistic strategy is employed, it is a dead giveaway that the users have weak arguments — so they resorting to ad hominem attacks, rather than providing scientific evidence.

So what is going on here? The answer is found in the description of GG. The whole GG idea is a Communist perspective: individuals are expendable when the collective benefits.

So that’s the critical thinking thought here: are citizens OK with US Government agencies, schools, businesses, organizations, churches, etc. promoting communist ideology? Of course, so far they haven’t come right out and said that.

However, they are moving in that direction, as many of our leaders do acknowledge their support of various socialism constructs. Be fully aware that Communism is just a short subway stop from Socialism.