Milling over Free Will Versus Public Health
The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Amidst the process of state formation, we dumped nearly 100,000 pounds of tea in the Boston Harbor to make sure that concept stuck. This does not mean liberty in the sense that we can whatever we please. You can't go to the movies to see Sing 2 and yell “FIRE” in the theater nor can you do a glorious cartwheel on the freeway. Our democracy is governed by a social contract in which we conform to rules and cooperate for the common good. The world is confronted with increasingly complex issues from cyber crime and viral pandemics to reality television stars with a cult following serving as president of the United States. These modern issues serve as kindling — igniting conversations of where we draw the line between upholding individual freedom and protecting the common good. John Stuart Mill, a founding utilitarian thinker, would support the government's authority to enforce mask and immunization mandates under the harm principle in order to mitigate the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic.
In March of 2020, the world was struck by a global pandemic that imploded the economy and overloaded health care systems worldwide. As of May 2022, the pandemic claimed the lives of more that six million people and stands as one of the deadliest in world history. At the height of the pandemic, ICUs surpassed capacity, New York City was entirely shut down, and thousands of people were dying daily (Statistica Research Department 2020, 1).
To mitigate the spread, the U.S. and other countries crafted legislation requiring mask mandates, travel restrictions and eventually mandatory immunization. Vaccines are proven to be a very effective and public health tool. However, they became a politicized and divisive issue, with push back specifically stemming from young males in predominantly conservative regions (Haischer 2020, 1).
​
Following the development of COVID vaccines, immunization has become required by most state and local governments. Businesses and schools also have their own vaccine policies, for instance, the UC system established that “all students, faculty and staff be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus before they will be allowed on campus or in a facility or office,” (Drake 2020). The wave of opposition asserts that mandatory vaccination infringes upon people’s free will and that mandates are an oppressive overexertion of political power. However, Mill’s harm principle assures that public health legislation is warranted to benefit the most people.
In Mill’s On Liberty, he sets out to identify the limits on government and the natural rights of individuals. His overarching claim is that the state should exist strictly to ensure citizens' liberties are safeguarded and to uphold that people don’t inflict harm upon others.
​
A person’s own good is not sufficient grounds to exercise power over her. Instead “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others,” (Mill 1859, 8). This is what Mill termed the harm principle: the idea that people should be permitted to say or do as they please unless their actions cause harm to someone else.
​
While this definition seems simplistic and conveniently vague, Mill makes important distinctions of what classifies as “harm.” According to his principle, a person is free to pursue actions that solely harm themself. He is a staunch defender of freedom of speech, saying that people are entitled to “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative,” (Mill 1859, 8). It’s an important part of society to defend even offensive or subjectively wrong opinions.
​
Now, vaccination against Covid has single-handedly reduced the mortality rates as they protect the body by building an antibody response. The vaccine drastically mitigates the risk of contracting Covid and reduces the severity of potential symptoms. Becoming vaccinated is not only important to an individual's health and safety, but also is an action that protects neighbors, friends, and family — especially elderly and immunocompromised people.
Consciously thwarting public health efforts is a decision that puts other people at risk. It’s not a demonstration of free will or a private matter that doesn’t affect others. While some would argue the harm principle doesn’t apply as it’s not a direct action towards another person, Mill postulates that “a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inactions,” (Mill 1859, 9).
Counties that neglect Covid policies pose as threats to the common good — with detrimental implications associated with hospitalization and transmission. First, unvaccinated individuals are at a higher risk of hospitalization. Filling ICUs with completely preventable Covid cases absorbs resources and prevents care from reaching others in need. While only 17 percent of adults remain unvaccinated in the United States, a study conducted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) found that COVID-19 hospitalizations cost $13.8 Billion from June to November in 2021 (Amin 2021). This places an entirely avoidable burden on our healthcare system and governmental institutions.
​
To add insult to injury, the majority of unvaccinated hospitalizations are among low-income people and are covered by Medicaid that draws from state and federal funding, or in other words American taxpayers (Herman 2021). This goes to show that remaining unvaccinated is not a choice that pertains solely to the individual. It’s a preventable nuisance that we all, as Americans, are confronted with.
​
Mill’s strong utilitarian beliefs assert that society should be governed by laws and actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. While a minority of Americans' version of free will is to decline immunization, one might argue that others' version of free will is to enjoy their community without risking the health and safety of their families. Collectively taking the steps back by science and reason to mitigate the pandemic’s effects is the greatest outcome for the largest number of people. Therefore, Mill would agree that getting vaccinated is the correct and most reasonable course of action for the U.S. and not a demonstration of repressive power by the government.
​
Secondly, a high concentration of unvaccinated individuals is also synonymous with high rates of transmission. Compromised individuals are subsequently at greater risk of infection as restaurants, gyms, bars, and public spaces become a host for Covid transmission. Under this misguided interpretation of free will, a person can, for instance, go to a concert unvaccinated and super-spread disease to attendees. Or they could transmit it to a parent or grandparent, who then returns to their elderly community triggering a deadly outbreak. That is not free will; it’s reckless endangerment.
​
Mill’s philosophy is often cited as the foundation for classical liberalism — so why would he support vaccine and mask mandates that infringe upon a person's free will? Many would argue that as a defender of limited institutional power, he would stand with those who said it should be left to individual choice. It’s an exploitation of power to require citizens to put something in their bodies! As a college student, I’ve come to hear and gain perspective from contrasting opinions. “I’m young and healthy.” “It’s equivalent to the flu.” “Why do I have to put my 20s on hold for a cough?” “If you're vaccinated why do you care if I am?” These frustrations are understandable. As someone who has also had a lot stripped away by Covid, I’ve pondered whether my actions as one person really make any difference in the grand scheme. However, at the end of the day, resolving the pandemic comes down to the civic duty of every individual. If every American removed themselves from the issue on the grounds of free will, society would crumble.
​
While it’s easy to view this issue in the past tense — something we won’t be confronted with anytime soon — that is a misguided assessment. We are not yet out of the woods as hundreds of positive cases emerge on a daily basis. According to experts at John Hopkins Medicine, as long as Covid continues to spread, mutations will unequivocally continue to be a problem. “New variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are detected every week.” This isn’t cause for immediate panic, “as there is some hope that we might not see variants that fully escape our vaccines,” (Bollinger 2022).
​
Nonetheless, the polarized political climate in the United States has, in many instances, made free will and the collective good mutually exclusive. The government's role is to protect its citizen health and well-being, which cannot be done if everyone abides by their subjective definition of free will. Mill would agree that legislation to protect the lives of Americans is not a demonstration of the authoritarian abuse of power he witnessed in 19th century England. Instead he would support what’s best for the majority and want to prevent harmful behavior.