Stoics like Marcus Aurelius would likely approach the question of vaccination—or any medical intervention—with a thoughtful and principled mindset grounded in their philosophy. Here's how Stoic principles would lead to a vaccine-hesitant stance unless there was compelling reason and evidence to proceed:
1. Alignment with Nature
The Stoics emphasized living in harmony with nature. They might view the body’s natural immune response as something to respect and support rather than override unnecessarily. A Stoic could argue that interventions like vaccines should only be considered when nature's own defenses are insufficient or when the risk of natural disease outweighs the risks of the intervention.
2. Virtue Over Convenience
Stoicism prioritizes the cultivation of virtue—wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice—above all else. Making a medical decision would require the application of wisdom (practical reason), weighing the risks and benefits thoughtfully. Stoics would likely reject the idea of taking a vaccine simply because of societal pressure or convenience, viewing such actions as potentially compromising their autonomy and principles.
3. Control vs. Non-Control
The Stoic dichotomy of control reminds individuals to focus on what is within their power and accept what is not. Vaccination might be viewed skeptically if it feels like a relinquishment of control over one’s own health to external authorities, especially if those authorities are perceived as driven by motives other than truth and virtue (e.g., profit or fear-mongering).
4. Reason and Evidence
Stoics rely on reason and evidence rather than emotion or peer pressure. Marcus Aurelius might ask:
- What are the actual risks of the disease versus the vaccine?
- What are the long-term effects, and are they well understood?
- Does the evidence justify the intervention for this individual or group? Without clear, rational answers, a Stoic would likely exercise caution and refrain from taking action.
5. Justice and Duty to the Community
While Stoics value justice and the common good, they would balance this against their individual responsibility to act in accordance with reason and virtue. A Stoic might refuse a vaccine if they believed it was unjustly coerced or if the evidence suggested it would not effectively serve the common good.
6. Courage and Fearlessness
Stoicism teaches freedom from irrational fear, including fear of illness or death. A Stoic like Marcus Aurelius would likely refuse to let fear drive a decision to vaccinate. Instead, the decision would be guided by a rational evaluation of the necessity and effectiveness of the vaccine.
Example in Practice
Imagine Marcus Aurelius faced with a vaccine for a disease with high mortality but also significant risks from the vaccine itself. He would:
- Analyze the evidence for and against.
- Seek wisdom from trustworthy, virtuous advisors.
- Decide based on what aligns with reason, virtue, and the natural order, rather than fear of the disease or social pressure to conform.
In short, Stoics might not oppose vaccination outright, but their philosophy would lead them to approach it with a healthy skepticism and demand a strong, well-reasoned justification before consenting.
