No Vax Dilemma

At the time of writing, Novak Djokovic, the World no1 tennis player, has been allowed to stay in Australia after he was initially refused entry to play in the Australian Open tennis tournament on the basis of not having sufficient grounds for being unvaccinated against Covid19. He has since admitted that he had breached some of the rules by doing an interview with a journalist whilst infected. Djokovic's case has brought into greater relief the arguments around personal responsibility re: the virus and the accompanying ethical issues about personal choice and freedom. On the one hand, anti-vaxxers (like Djokovic) point to the importance of personal choice and rail against the idea of being compelled to put something in their body. Some tend to take a more extreme position and align such mandates as being evidence of a Big Brother, shadowy state intervention in our lives. Others, however, take a dim view of such behaviour and see Djokovic's behaviour as being symptomatic of elitism and double standards, where those with less power and status within society are required to play by one set of rules (being vaccinated to gain entry to events/ self isolating etc) whilst celebrities with more power and status play by a different set of rules. Related to that, there are those who see vaccination as being the morally responsible thing to do in order to protect others and see Djokovic's exemption as being an example of gaming the system. There are some striking similarities between this story and the current furore surrounding UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government around lockdown rules breaches https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59972859

There are those who see this as evidence, like in the case of Djokovic, of this being one rule for one and one rule for another and there are many heart-rending stories circulating on social media about people whose loved ones were forced to die alone in hospital due to people following the rules, whilst Boris Johnson and his government socialised in the garden of 10 Downing Street. It is difficult not be moved by this emotive subject in some way. However, as an academic, who is interested in knowledge and power, I want to take a slightly different tack on this. For me, it is interesting that the dominant discourse for those opposed to vaccination is about emphasising personal choice and agency (of course, there are others around the safety of the vaccine etc). In terms of judging such behaviour, it is useful to explore these stories from an ethical theory perspective. In terms of Djokovic and others who are opposed to vaccination, we can see their position as being aligned with an ethical egoist position. This view of ethics sees it being appropriate for individuals to act principally in their own self interest and, at its extreme, it has been argued that it is immoral for individuals NOT to do so. This position has some obvious connections, for me, with the idea of free market economics. As long ago as 1776, the economist Adam Smith argued in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations that it was important that individuals acted in their own self interest such as that the 'invisible hand' of the market would allocate resources to the places and people where they would be best used (allocative efficiency in economic terms). This was because he believed the market would then, via its invisible hand, ensure that production of goods and services would be at the socially optimum level. Hence, free market libertarians argue that by individuals acting in their own self interest (the egoist position), ironically, society moves towards the position of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number (a core tenet of utilitarian ethics). Arguably, this has been at the heart of much of Boris Johnson's Conservative government rhetoric, particularly around Johnson's strong support for the Leave vote in the Brexit debates. The Leave campaign focused on the potential for the UK to throw off the shackles of governance from mainland Europe and to be 'freed up' to engage in unrestricted world trade agreements. With this backdrop in mind, it has been fascinating to see, as a result of the public health crisis caused by covid-19, the Conservative government engaging in policies which it would have undoubtedly labelled as examples of 'the nanny state' in the past, such as the furlough scheme for businesses and, indeed, lockdown policies, mask wearing etc. We can see those policies as being rooted in the utilitarian ethical position of the greatest good for the greatest number. I would argue that this constitutes something of a personal moral crisis for Boris Johnson, however. His right-of-centre personal politics and values drive him towards libertarianism, personal choice and free market economics. However, there is huge public and political pressure for him to be the instrument of implementing public policies which fly in the face of these. For me, both Johnson and Djokovic are also subject to their behaviour being evaluated in terms of Kantian ethics. Kant argued that there was a categorical imperative in terms of moral duty that should be used to judge moral worth. In other words, Kant did not believe that the ends justified the means but that people were ends in of themselves and what mattered was that individuals should act in terms of their moral duty, even if that was in direct contradiction with what would be in their own self interest. Applying this to Djokovic, his behaviour can be judged as being immoral in Kantian terms because his intent, seen from this perspective, is to evade the need to get vaccinated and to play in the Australian Open, as opposed to getting vaccinated and protecting others. Seen in this light, he is not fulfilling his moral duty because he is not subordinating his own self interest to the needs of broader society. In a similar way, Johnson's intent in attending a social drinks event during lockdown is seen by some as a dereliction of moral duty, compounded by his attempts, initially, to avoid admitting that he and his wife had attended. Whilst he has since apologised and admitted this, it is interesting to note his persisting with claims of believing that this was a work event, as opposed to a social event. I think this points to his ongoing personal dilemma with regard to his intent, as outlined above. Similarly, there is parallel with Djokovic's apology about his breech of the rules about isolation when being interviewed by a French journalist, where Djokovic points out that he wore a mask at all times, except when he posed for a photo, even refusing to remove it when it was suggested by the journalist. It would seem that both men, at some level, have internalised some understanding of moral duty else they would surely not feel the need to mitigate their intent and behaviour in this way. Like most people, I have my own views on the behaviour and motivations of both men. However, I think it is important that we critically reflect on the criteria and our own ethical positions when making such judgements and I hope that the above account is helpful to some as they reflect on these issues.