4 hours ago
Ironically, this "morality comes before reality" perspective is what the left endorses as well via its social justice conflicts with science in anti-naturalism and the classic science wars between humanities intellectuals and science philosophers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
When scientific arguments obscure, moral ones, democracy suffers
https://undark.org/2026/05/14/opinion-sc...arguments/
INTRO: When U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last month that military personnel would no longer be required to get the flu vaccine, public health experts criticized the policy change, arguing that it would result in more cases of serious illness and undermine force readiness. They took the opportunity to reiterate that vaccines are safe and effective, a fact that has been famously (though inconsistently) questioned by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
But Hegseth didn’t attack vaccines or reject science. He asserted that personal freedoms, including religious liberty and bodily autonomy, were of utmost importance. While not disclaiming the goal of preventing illness — vaccines will still be available to service members — he ranked it second to his vision of freedom. This is where the disagreement between the Pentagon and public health experts really lies: Hegseth’s critics see protecting population health as paramount and safeguarding bodily autonomy as secondary.
The policy change surfaces a set of questions that Americans have had to grapple with before, most notably during the Covid-19 pandemic: Should we stick up for the rights of the individual above all else, or make the common good our top priority? How should the balance between personal choice and collective thriving be struck under a variety of circumstances?
These are issues that deserve to be debated. But as in prior cases where they have arisen, critics of the new policy have mostly avoided engaging these fundamental moral questions. By reiterating scientific findings about the effectiveness of vaccines in disease prevention, public health experts refuse even to acknowledge that their priority for population health may not be everyone’s priority. They imply that policies that pursue other goals fly in the face of science.
Public health experts are not the only ones who use science to delegitimize disagreements over moral priorities. In areas affected by industrial pollution, government officials and industry scientists tend to put the highest priority on economic development. They may ask how risks to health may be ameliorated, or kept in balance with economic benefits, but they often refuse to recognize arguments that put community health first... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
When scientific arguments obscure, moral ones, democracy suffers
https://undark.org/2026/05/14/opinion-sc...arguments/
INTRO: When U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last month that military personnel would no longer be required to get the flu vaccine, public health experts criticized the policy change, arguing that it would result in more cases of serious illness and undermine force readiness. They took the opportunity to reiterate that vaccines are safe and effective, a fact that has been famously (though inconsistently) questioned by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
But Hegseth didn’t attack vaccines or reject science. He asserted that personal freedoms, including religious liberty and bodily autonomy, were of utmost importance. While not disclaiming the goal of preventing illness — vaccines will still be available to service members — he ranked it second to his vision of freedom. This is where the disagreement between the Pentagon and public health experts really lies: Hegseth’s critics see protecting population health as paramount and safeguarding bodily autonomy as secondary.
The policy change surfaces a set of questions that Americans have had to grapple with before, most notably during the Covid-19 pandemic: Should we stick up for the rights of the individual above all else, or make the common good our top priority? How should the balance between personal choice and collective thriving be struck under a variety of circumstances?
These are issues that deserve to be debated. But as in prior cases where they have arisen, critics of the new policy have mostly avoided engaging these fundamental moral questions. By reiterating scientific findings about the effectiveness of vaccines in disease prevention, public health experts refuse even to acknowledge that their priority for population health may not be everyone’s priority. They imply that policies that pursue other goals fly in the face of science.
Public health experts are not the only ones who use science to delegitimize disagreements over moral priorities. In areas affected by industrial pollution, government officials and industry scientists tend to put the highest priority on economic development. They may ask how risks to health may be ameliorated, or kept in balance with economic benefits, but they often refuse to recognize arguments that put community health first... (MORE - details)