Vaccine Ethics: Biblical versus “Costs/Benefits”

by Steve Halbrook

The crux of the vaccine debate is morality, or ethics. That is, “ought we to vaccinate?” This must be decided by Scripture, as Jesus is King of kings, and has all authority in Heaven and on Earth. Therefore, He must be obeyed in all areas of life; Scripture equips for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

Now, in the vaccine debate, both sides often raise the idea of “costs and benefits” when deciding whether one should vaccinate. That is, one must determine whether by vaccinating the possible benefits to one’s health are more likely to exceed the possible detriments to one’s health.

Thus, pro-vaxxers hold that the disease protection that one gets from a vaccine is more beneficial than the possible side-effects of the vaccine. And anti-vaxxers hold that the dangers from vaccines far outweigh any supposed protection that a vaccine gives.

However, to the extent that these are the assumed foundational moral arguments, neither side at this point assumes a proper ethic. Biblically speaking, to whatever degree “costs and benefits” may be weighed in an ethical decision, they are not foundational. Rather, God’s law is.

Scripture teaches we are not to do evil that good may come: 

And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:8, NKJV)

Thus, we must approach the vaccine issue this way: by vaccination, do we endanger ourselves — and thus violate the Sixth Commandment — in order to receive a possible benefit (no matter how beneficial a vaccine seems to be)?

Considering that vaccination

• is an unnatural process, bypassing the body’s initial defenses and going directly into the bloodstream;
• injects dangerous ingredients into one’s bloodstream;
• is admittedly unsafe by the manufacturers themselves;
• is reported to cause harm in the VAERS database and by countless eyewitness accounts
• and indeed, is a killer;

then the answer is obvious: vaccination endangers one (in both the short and long term) in order to receive a supposed benefit. Vaccination, then, is doing evil that good may come.

We must be careful in assuming that vaccines have any benefit to begin with, as trusting liars is foolish, and the pro-vaccine narrative is based on lie after lie after lie. For instance, polio was redefined, making the polio vaccine look effective, and death certificates omit vaccine-caused deaths. In fact, the whole idea of viral contagion is questionable.

One may say, “What about life-saving surgery? Aren’t you taking a risk here in order to receive a benefit?” 

Not that I consider vaccines life-saving anyway — but there is a difference between jumping out of a second story window to escape a fire and doing so in the mere possibility that a fire may come. 

The first scenario I liken to necessary life-saving surgery; the fire is in your house (that is, you already have a physical problem raging inside of you), and thus you may need to “jump out of a second story window” via risky surgery.

The second scenario I liken to vaccination. There is no fire in your house (that is, you have no physical problem, i.e., a disease, or a “fire” inside of you); you are simply endangering yourself by jumping out of a window for a problem that you may never encounter. 

There is no sense of proportionality — all of this for a benefit that may very well be fabricated. Moreover, if germ theory is valid, then note that vaccines can actually spread the very disease that they purportedly protect against, and so being vaccinated may also be likened to a spark that could ignite the whole neighborhood on fire. But beyond this, vaccines cause much greater problems than they claim to protect against.

Thus, again, vaccines are doing evil that good may come. The issue in vaccine ethics is not whether there are good results, but whether the action itself is morally lawful.

So, since God’s law should be our ethical standard, I would not encourage my fellow anti-vaxxers to make the “cost/benefit” argument the foundational basis of vaccine ethics. (However, it is fine to use it in the context of reducing the pro-vaccine side’s “cost/benefit” argument to absurdity by showing that there is a much greater cost to vaccination than any perceived benefit.)

Also, while it is indeed true that anti-vaxxers win (handily) in the cost/benefit debate, relying on costs/benefits as the primary basis to vaccinate may influence others into becoming pro-vaxx.

For instance, say an anti-vaxxer promotes the use of the “cost/benefits” moral argument, and someone who is undecided is influenced to use the same moral philosophy. He may research material on vaccination, and comes to think he has read both sides of the debate thoroughly enough; but, being swayed by pro-vaxx propaganda, decides that the “benefits” to vaccination exceeds the risks.

This is all very possible, considering that the internet suppresses anti-vaccine information.

And so, since such person holds to the “costs/benefits” philosophy as the basis for vaccine morality, he logically concludes that vaccination is good and moral.

But, if he held to the biblical approach, then he might otherwise see that vaccines should be opposed, even if he had reason to think (incorrectly) that vaccines have more benefits than dangers; the dangers would be enough to see that it would be a violation of Scripture to engage in vaccination. His “house is not on fire” — he is harming himself to avoid a harm that may never come.

Some pro-vaxxers not only do evil that good may come on an individual level (by putting themselves at risk via vaccination for a perceived benefit); they also do so on a societal level. Many fully realize that vaccines kill people, but hold that it is acceptable to save a greater number of lives; the “benefits,” so it is said, exceeds the “costs”. And some would also apply this philosophy to aborting babies to create “life- saving vaccines.”

In short, this philosophy says, “kill a few to save many; do evil that good may come.” To such a twisted, evil philosophy, the words of Reverend Isaac Lockhart Peebles in 1902 are relevant :

The plea of the advocates of these [vaccination] abominations when cornered is, it is right to kill a few in order to save many. What a plea! Kill a few to save many! In reality it is killing many to save none. The commandment of the God of the universe is ignored, whose commandment is: “Thou shalt not kill.” (Ex. xx. 13; Rom. xiii. 9.) O killers of the people, an awful day awaits you! And may you realize this awful truth before it is forever too late! ]ust simply open your eyes and behold your diseasing, tormenting, unmerciful, and deadly work, and repent most sincerely of it, and cease it at once and forever before our God shall call you before him to account for it!

Reverend Isaac Lockhart Peebles, Unanwerable Objections to Vaccination (Nashville, TN: South Bigham & Smith, 1902), 50.

In short, for their complicity in murder, vaccinators risk being struck down by God in this life. And without the blood of Jesus to pay for their sins (including the sin of harming others via vaccination), they face eternal torment in Hell in the next life. Vaccinators must repent of vaccinating, and if they are not Christians, find salvation in Jesus Christ via faith.

But back to the matter of costs/benefits.

And so, yes: tell your pro-vaccine friends the benefits of not vaccinating, and the costs of vaccinating. But we must be careful to remember that this is much more than a matter of calculations: it is a matter of morality. At the end of the day, whatever we calculate, God’s law is the crux of the matter.

The Bible, in short, does not teach situational ethics reduced to costs/benefits. God’s law is eternal and fixed. It doesn’t matter how much vaccines are believed to be beneficial. Vaccination, being a poison that endangers one’s health and life, stands condemned by Scripture (Romans 3:8); it is doing evil that good may come.

The duty is ours; the results are God’s.

If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.