Peter, you assert that, “We have an overriding moral obligation in any of our actions to help those who need help, and to make sure that we harm no-one”.

But tell me, why do we have this obligation?

You cite various religious leaders and philosophers who make similar assertions to yours, as if that answers the question, but it doesn’t.

People can assert anything they like and perhaps many people can assert the same thing, but that in itself doesn’t give their assertions any authority or make them “right”.

Hitler made many assertions and many Nazis agreed with him. I presume you would think Hitler and the Nazis were “wrong” but what makes him wrong and say, Buddha, “right” in what he asserted?

You seem to have some unstated idea of how the world/universe is supposed to be. If so, where do you get this idea from?

If the world has just happened to unintentionally come into existence for no purpose, then there is no state that the world/universe is meant to be in. Thus, if that were true, then no one would have any obligation to anyone or anything.

You need to provide your foundational beliefs before you worry about people getting vaccinated or not.

I got my two jabs for two reasons. For my well-being & to hopefully help stop the spread of COVID-19.
People who are against the jab simply because a Govt asks them to are either incredibly selfish or incredibly stupid. My suspicion is both !
Then there are those who want to "wait'n see". Typical fence-sitters of no use to anyone not even themselves.
They already go through life bluging of others & now they want others to take risks for them also ! Parasitic Lefties is all I can say !

JP has questioned my article “Why we must take the (Covid 19) vaccine.” He states:

“We have an overriding moral obligation in any of our actions to help those who need help, and to make sure that we harm no-one”.

But tell me, why do we have this obligation?

You cite various religious leaders and philosophers who make similar assertions to yours, as if that answers the question, but it doesn’t. “

It does JP. I will tell you why. First, if thinking and well-respected people over the last 3000 years, including King Solomon, Jesus Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Dalai Lama, the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions with their concept of ahimsa, along with several modern-day philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, have made this statement, then it must have some substance.

But furthermore this moral rule can actually be proven. Every major social advance over history follows this rule:
Social security programs such as unemployment benefits, universal health care even poor houses in the olden days; the ending of restrictions against homosexuality such as approving gay marriage, ending slavery, abolishing foot binding in Japan.

But most of all vaccinations save lives, The National Academy of Sciences tells you so as does the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology, Click on their websites.

You do not have the freedom to reject vaccinations JP. You have a moral obligation to endorse them

Quote. "It does JP. I will tell you why. First, if thinking and well-respected people over the last 3000 years, including King Solomon, Jesus Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Dalai Lama, the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions with their concept of ahimsa, along with several modern-day philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, have made this statement, then it must have some substance".

So Peter your argument is based on nothing but an appeal to authority. History tells us that King Solomon eliminated a large number of enemies, & his less favored, does that mean it is OK for me to do the same? Why do you chose to quote a killer?

Vaccines have always protected the vaccinated from catching the disease. Once vaccinated the recipient is safe from catching the disease from any source, including the unvaccinated. If this "stuff" does not do this, why is it being called a vaccine. I see the WHO are trying to change the definition of a vaccine to try to cover what this "stuff" actually does, not quite ethical in my view.

If you are an ethicist, please explain the ethics of making illegal in this country the proven life saving Ivermectin. This ban has caused the death of more than a few who could have been saved by it's use. Does this not make those who recommended its ban, & those who actually banned it, killers. What is the ethical punishment for killers in this day & age? We know the punishment enforced by King Solomon, is it ethical to follow his lead? Appeals to authority can be a two edged sword, probably not ethical.

We know it is hard for aging "experts" to stay relevant. Perhaps they should simply retire quietly before they give all the old a bad name.

How about the author does what he thinks is best for himself, and the rest of us do what we think is best for ourselves. There is too much preaching, and too many blues being made for us to take notice of people we don’t know from a bar of soap; people who, according to Ramesh Thakur are: “... control fascists masquerading as public health authorities and given seeping powers by Pontius Pilate-like prime ministers and premiers …”.

Thakur’s own recommendations are:

Focus protection efforts on the vulnerable
Terminate test, track and trace campaigns
Ditch masks that mainly symbolise compliance with useless diktats
Allow treatments using prepurposed drugs
Stop treating the unvaccinated as spreaders. The only people allowed to travel with Omicron was spread were all double vaxxed.

Peter - I won’t go over the point that Hasbeen has made that you are simply appealing to authority. You need to provide valid reasons to justify your position and you have not done so yet.

Further, you use the phrase, “every major social advance”, which indicates that you believe that there is some right or desirable point that we can or should “advance” toward.

However if the universe has just happened unintentionally into existence for no purpose, then no such point exists. Of course you and everyone else can make up whatever such point you may like but there can be no objective criteria for saying that one possible point is better or more correct than another. In such a universe there is no moral obligation to endorse or reject the covid jab or to do anything else.