I have an opinion on vaccines. I looked briefly over their history on a website called “Wikipedia” (the article on vaccines at that website can be found here) and it seems to me that vaccines are clearly important for our culture, due to the length of that article.
If you compare, for example, the length of the Wikipedia article on vaccines to the Wikipedia articles on other important historical factors–like Hitler, Ghandi, and Jesus–you will find that, while not quite the same length as those articles, the article on vaccines is still quite a long one. And because it is a long article, I think it’s pretty obvious that vaccines are important.
Now, you might ask, I assent to your clear demonstration that vaccines are important, but why are they therefore beneficial?
It is here that I must confess the clear fundamental principles I believe all people who believe as believers of beliefs must work under and that is the principle of space-and-time consumption, or the SATC for short (it is here I choose the word “consumption” over “scale,” thereby denoting the metaphorically carnivorous nature of forward-thrusted history).
Looking back on the entirety of human history (which can be found here), from the legends which form the bulk of the fruit of our obscured communal memories, to the clear obviousness of the reality of the patriarchal society we live in now (indisputable proof of this can be found here), it is clear that our world has been shaped most strongly by historical forces which were remembered by the most people for the most amount of time. This can clearly be seen with Hitler, Ghandi, and Jesus.
The SATC, therefore, is a scale which we can first use to determine importance. If a historical force (whether it be an actor, event, trend, idea, or ongoing environment, etc) takes up both a lot of space in either the physical reality we see or the illusory reality of our minds and it takes up time, then we can move on and therefore determine it’s value. In this sense, we first figure out the quantity of its existence, then we determine its quality. We move from using the faculty of observation, then to the faculty of judgment. Once we have observed the extent of something, what therefore, does that extent actually mean?
This is both a historical and ethical question, but let’s just assume it’s the latter, because that’s easier. So, so, so you got these vaccines and they take up a lot of space, it seems, almost as much as Hitler, and what are we going to do about it?
I’ll submit something rather controversial (let the historians work out what this means later!): that something is positively ethical insofar as it stirs in our communal consciousness a sense of good ethics. In this, I am not judging the intrinsic value of something before its effect, but rather claiming that the effect of something is its intrinsic ethical value. And the effect of vaccines has been mounting campaigns on the internet (specifically blogs by moms), however non-unanimous, of people defending their personal ethical beliefs about vaccines, ethical dialogues which would not have existed had vaccines not had the impact on the SATC as they have had. And the creation of further ethical dialogues is a good.
Therefore, are vaccines good in all times and in all places?