Three Harm-Based Arguments for a Moral Obligation to Vaccinate.

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Bioethics
• Epidemiology

Background:

• Herd immunity is a primary justification for vaccination.
• Existing ethical frameworks may not fully capture the moral obligation to vaccinate.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the sufficiency of herd immunity as the sole basis for a moral obligation to vaccinate.
• To develop comprehensive harm-based arguments for vaccination.
• To establish the primacy of harm considerations over fairness in vaccination ethics.

Main Methods:

• Ethical analysis of harm-based arguments.
• Examination of vaccination thresholds and population dynamics.
• Comparative analysis of harm and fairness considerations.

Main Results:

• Herd immunity alone is insufficient to establish a consistent moral obligation to vaccinate.
• Additional harm-based arguments strengthen the obligation, particularly below herd immunity.
• Pragmatic reasons, including vaccination rate instability and population heterogeneity, support vaccination above the threshold as a precautionary measure.
• Harm considerations hold normative primacy over fairness in establishing vaccination obligations.

Conclusions:

• Moral obligations to vaccinate are multifaceted and extend beyond achieving herd immunity.
• A robust ethical framework for vaccination must integrate individual harm, population-level risks, and pragmatic considerations.
• Harm-based reasoning provides a stronger foundation for vaccination mandates than fairness alone.